Bank Of America, Account Fleecing, Insidious Automated System, Shyster "Insufficient Funds Fees" Pasadena California

Okay Lonnie aka Lawrence aka whomever you are today, now you've come up with a 3rd name for the restaurant. Are you oblivious to this fact? How can you expect anyone to believe anything you say when your story keeps changing. Between the aliases you use and the different names of places, I cannot begin to even guess you actually have an account anywhere. And, since you'd like to turn this into a debate on theology, fine. I have no fears of dying. I live a good life and do not commit any of the 7 deadly sins. Good luck to you with that though. Since you can't seem to tell the truth, I hope you like it extra crispy. As for the rest of your tripe, I don't care either. My son could due basic adding/subtracting when he was 5, why can't you? So, lets see if we can all add up the facts as you have presented them. 1: you are a confused individual who doesn't know his/her own name or where he/she goes every day, 2: you do not understand the simple concept of single or double digit addition/subtraction, 3: you believe your employer is going to cancel his business accounts and completely change the way he banks and processes his cashflow just to satisfy your needs/desires. I believe you are suffering from either Alzheimers or Delusions of Grandeur. Either that or your a drunk. Have fun.

I find this entire scenario of NSF fees, cheques (yes, that's the Canadian spelling), VISA Check Cards, Debit Cards etc. etc. quite interesting.

Let's take a look a the system in Canada for one minute ... and maybe you should be demanding more from your ENTIRE banking system in the U.S. Sure we have VISA, Mastercard, American Express ... But there is no such thing as a "Visa" Check Card. As I read it, Debit Cards are issued by banks just as they are here in Canada.

There is only two ways to do things in Canada:
1. Provide a credit card and sign the sales slip.
2. Provide a debit card and enter your pin number.

There is ONE system for debit card - Interac Direct Payment (that's right, same thing all across Canada).

Now let's pretend: You have a bank account with $10 in it (and no overdraft) and purchase something that costs $15. Your card is swiped, pin entered. The system will return the message INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. No one gets charged an NSF fee; you simply cannot buy what you would like.

Same thing with an account with overdraft: If you have a $200 overdraft and it's already $200 overdrawn you CAN'T PURCHASE ANYTHING BECAUSE THE SYSTEM WILL NOT LET YOU. Once again, no one gets charged an NSF fee.

Why allow such a system that doesn't charge ridiculous fees? ACCEPTANCE by consumers. Interac is available everywhere (no kidding, probably 95 percent of stores have it, if not more). Interac.org says Direct Payment is on par with cash (it's probably more so now a few years later).

On the other hand, same as the U.S., if it is a paper cheque which was written or an automated debit (for a car payment, insurance etc.) NSF fees do occur.

I know what some people are thinking - Don't spend it if you don't have it - however, should a $5 meal at McDonald's cost a $30 NSF fee because I forgot to write down a $3 coffee and donut? People will not use the debit system as much if they get ripped off like this too many time.

By the way ... my account balance is ALWAYS correct. Even two minutes after I debit the money it has been posted to my account. Why can't this be done everywhere?

Something to think about.

It is definitely each checking accountholder's responsibility to keep track of each transaction or check written. It's not the automated system's job or intention.

My husband is a chronic NSF'er and he always has these outrageous fees for insufficient funds, and he's also dependent on the automated system. It's not a good idea. Keep your own record of transactions, and you won't have these problems. My balance is frequently low, sometimes less than $2, but I know, to the penny, how much money I have at my disposal because I keep track of it. Try it!

I'm no longer with BOA because I moved, and there's no BOA in this tiny town. However, I would like to say that I did have one problem with BOA that someone else mentioned. They WILL post large transactions first, creating the potential for numerous overdraft fees for smaller transactions, whereas there may have only been one overdraft fee had the smaller transactions posted first. That bites. It's still your own fault for overdrawing, but it does bite.

There are a couple of people who have repeatedly posted comments against BOA, and I would say you have way too much time on your hands. Use the time more constructively, and try using Microsoft Money. That way, you won't even need a calculator!

Go ahead and post your bad comments about me in response, because I will most likely never come back to this site to read them! :)

I guess my first responce didnt pass the reading.It was probably too true and to the point.Robert,as far as the AleHouse they are all Miller's AleHouse.3 in Jax and 31 elsewhere.You don't understand what burning in hell is? That is going to be your problem,solve it.I don't have a name problem,they are both correct,still your problem,figure it out genuis.I don't care what you think either.All you do is add insults and to put it politely you should have been an unborn child as far as I'm concerned but just like my account fleecing,insidious automated transaction posting there is some bad things ya just gota put up with.Have a great day everybody.Lonnie

Use your ethics, use your integrity, bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

If Zia is so smart, how come she relies on bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

She obviously didn't receive proper education to deal fairly and squarely with customers on her own.

Charge customers fees for their "mistakes?" Charge banks fees for THEIRS as well!

Use your ethics, use your integrity, bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

If Zia is so smart, how come she relies on bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

She obviously didn't receive proper education to deal fairly and squarely with customers on her own.

Charge customers fees for their "mistakes?" Charge banks fees for THEIRS as well!

Use your ethics, use your integrity, bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

If Zia is so smart, how come she relies on bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

She obviously didn't receive proper education to deal fairly and squarely with customers on her own.

Charge customers fees for their "mistakes?" Charge banks fees for THEIRS as well!

Use your ethics, use your integrity, bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

If Zia is so smart, how come she relies on bad faith business practices to fleece and rip customers off?

She obviously didn't receive proper education to deal fairly and squarely with customers on her own.

Charge customers fees for their "mistakes?" Charge banks fees for THEIRS as well!

First, nowhere did I ever interject religion into this thread, or any other for that matter. I have no idea what you're yammering about with the "burn in hell" stuff. Second, the restaurant is called Mandarin Ale House as you have pointed out, not The Alehouse as you stated earlier. This may be a trivial point but, words have meanings and it's the little things that count when describing something. Calling a cow a big hairy animal is accurate. It's also accurate for at least 2 dozen other animals. Sort of like referring to Bono's as The BBQ Place when it's NOT called that. To quote.."you are an idiot, sir". You still are doing nothing more than whining because of $66 you claim was wrongfully deducted. Of course, you also changed your name. Is it Lonnie today or Lawrence? You seem to have a bad habit of getting names wrong. If you can't remember where you go every day or what your name is, how are we supposed to believe anything you say. My original statement still stands.

I want to thank the supporters of my cause as I support yours. Glad to say my meeting with the Pres of the bank was good, refunded my 2 overdrafts and I threw some chips in a savings acct. with overdraft protection. He found it hrad to believe that the transaction was posted on the 19th but listed on the 18th from out of the blue but knowing me and that I wouldn't BS him over $66 he took care of me.BUT,while me were checking my account I pointed out that there was an AT&T check that had been out for alot longer than normal and I told him that I would bet him it was waiting in the system to bust my balls if my balance got too low.I figured it would suddenly show up because I deposited so much cash they wouldn't try and wait it out any longer.

Sure enough I checked online at 1am last night,saw the list of pending transactions and the $66 refund with my deposit but no check.This morning though at 7:30am everything went through and the check appeared paid too.It was predated to the 29th but wasn't posted untill the 30th.Just as I thought!

I didn't have time to call him with an I TOLD U SO but I will tomorrow.It does happen so BEWARE.
Happy Holidays, Lonnie

To Robert who lives in Jacksonville and has no clue about what he is talking about.There are 3 Ale Houses in Jax.1 in mandrin it's called the Mandrin Ale House,1 in tinsletown the Southside or Tinseltown Ale House and the one at Regency,thats right,The Regency Ale House of which I own a table lol.I really don't care about your stupidity nor do I need a banking lesson.Bank of Unamerica is giving me one for only $66.The fact is if I knowingly make a mistake I have no problem paying the penalty.But when I see them post something that is dated 11/18 and wasn't logged in 2am 11/19 but was at 7am 11/19 that is fraud,a rip off and they should come clean.It goes on because I heard about it before I saw it.If you believe in God and you think I would burn in hell over a $66 lie your wrong.You are an Idiot sir.

Angela,I hate to hear that this has happened to your mom.I was warned about this from a few friends that are very succesfull and would never lie about it.I opened the account only because My paycheck is a BOA account and I know the branch manager of the bank I opened the acct. at.I couldn't break away from work untill Wed.and he was out of town.I will confront him with it tomorrow.Hopefully he will take care of it and I will open a second account at another bank that won't play hide and seek with my money.Take care Lonnie

If Joe is so smart, how come he relies on a automated system to do the math? He obviously didn't receive the proper education to count on his own.

Lonnie, my mother is a longtime BofA customer and has had this happen numerous times. Transactions that have been 'posted' to the account have been reversed for no reason and then posted in the manner most favorable to BofA. Deposits of paychecks that have been deposited for years into this account suddenly have holds placed on them so that the overdraft fees can rack up. And the kicker is that their fees can be deducted from the 'held' money but my mother can't have access to it.

This goes above and beyond people being irresponsible with bank accounts. There is no reason for holds to be placed on pay roll checks. There is no reason that a person who has direct deposit shouldn't be able to count on that money being in there on the expected date, and write checks accordingly, knowing that by the time the checks are presented for payment, money will be available. Everyone does it, but for the love of god, it's like banking with someone who doesn't have one set of rules.

We can only hope that with this report and the myriad of other reports on this site someone will take notice and help all the BofA customers out.

I can see(no pun intended) why you need reading glasses. There is no place in all of Duval County called the Alehouse. So, since you are making up the name of a restaurant, we can all assume you are making up the rest. Sad, to say the least. All of you need to try this. It will work every time it's used. BASIC MATH. That's the ticket. Learn how to add/subtract and see how that works for you. I have several accounts. Some with BoA, some with NFCU. They all have the same rules to follow and they all charge you when YOU cannot do simple, 1st grade problem solving. Most people would learn from the first time it happened to them. Others, like EVERYONE who has been whining about the NSF fees, don't. Some people just want someone to hold their hand all the way through life. For those of us who don't, I say AMEN to the fees. They allow more interest dividends to go into my accounts and make me richer. YAY! Raise the fees up some more. For the record, I used to work for a guy who paid everyone every week with bad checks. The fees alone totalled up to more than $1500/month. He didn't understand them either. He figured since he had overdraft protection, the checks should be "fee-free". They aren't of course. But, those who have functioning lobes know this. He still hasn't learned anything from them, and he probably never will.

I had a business while banking with BOA for 4+ years and we paid out a whopping amount of embezzelment for overdraft FEES in the amount of 38 dollars for every single overdraft that occurred while the deposit was pending posting in their banking system.
If I was to add it all up it would be over a thousand dollars in the amount of time we banked there. YES, we had a slumping economy and practice at the time and the BANK knows how to TAKE care of its customers!! The only reason we did business there is because they were one of the first to have image checking and have a presence in many different states. I would not EVER recommend using that bank if you don't have a commitment to be persistant with overlapping your deposits to a positive balance in a precise timely manner. OR YOU WILL GET BURNED!!!
Its theft to be charges those kinds of fees and who has the time to call for every incident that in an automated system. Well we didn't and continued to GET robbed! Its "business as usual" at that bank of mobsters. GOOD LUCK TO ALL RESILIENT CUSTOMERS OF BOA. HA

In my book they are exactly like the post said. In my case I was runnig low balance with a paycheck to be direct deposit(a BOA check)12:00am thursday 11/19/04.The experience stared when I went to dinner at the Alehouse like I do between 5 to 15+ times a month.When I pay the tab there is a buffer added.Say the check was $40 the bank calls it $44-46 for whatever reason.cool.Everytime(100's of times)I eat there it is posted as a pending amount on my online boa page.When I came home from going to eat I checked my account,it was posted as a pending amount of $17.00+ leaving me with a $14.00 balance at the top of the page which IS the balance INCLUDING pending transactions.

The next morning the transaction was NOT listed,my balance was $31.00 in both locations on my page.I had said that my meal wasn't as good as usual but I never heard of them retracting a payment,I show my wife being somewhat suprised that it was gone.The transaction was made on 11/16 and gone 8am 11/17.I went to work,came home,same thing,$31.00 and no Alehouse.The next morning,Wednesday 11/18 same thing $31.00 balance.I went to work,I needed gas so I got 10 bucks on the card.I also stopped and got reading glasses $5.33.I could have borrowed the money with no problem but my check was to go in that night so I didn't.I was uneasy to say the least so when I got home I went online and checked my account where both transactions were listed and a $15.67 available balance.That night I went out with my son who was treating that night.I got home at about 1:45 am 11/19 and checked to see if my check had posted and it had adding to the available balance.Much relieved but still wondering where my alehouse tab went.

When I got up to go to work the next morning(7:00am 11/19) I went online and they had reposted the tab,dated it 11/18 and put my $15.33 transactions in the red and adding 2 $33 overdraft charges.I was Smokin,I have gone to the bank and they won't come clean.It is fraud the payment wasn't posted on the 18th and they have told me that deposits are always posted before purchases are deducted.Truth is they LIE,I saw it go down,I know it went down and God can burn me in hell forever if I'm lying.

I have been told about this happening when I was thinking about doing direct deposit with Bank of America but it is the truth.Being longtime friends with my boss who has several of the business account's with them to remove them.That would be the loss of millions a year in money going through BOA.I will be advertising My concerns on Bank of Unamerica on the side of the leer topper on my Crewcab Dually tomorrow in Jacksonville Fla and will park it in front of there banks untill they return my $66 they robbed from me.

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you Elena. I know that I've posted a nearly identical response on another report, but it seems like there aren't too many people posting helpful information for you. Anyway, my suggestion can't really help you regain the fees you paid BOA, sorry. But if you want to avoid this happening in the future, with any bank, I'd really recommend that you set up Overdraft Protection. Typically, you just have to set up a Savings account or a Line of Credit with the bank and have them link it to your checking account.

There's usually no fee to have it in place, though you may have to pay for the Savings or Credit line, depending on the bank. Even then, you can usually score a freebie for a period of time. Also, the fee for using it it usually very reasonable. It can definately save you quite a bit of money and help you out in case you have an emergency. Unfortunately, most banks charge fees the same way and process debits from highest dollar ammount to lowest dollar ammount. Even if you end up going to another bank, I'd still recommend setting this up. I hope this helps!

I'll give it a rest once all you shyster-apologists do.

All you shyster-apologists ask for everything you get here and keep on returning for more--and I'll happily oblige and give it to you.

So d**n, Kathryn, stop projecting your own empty existence on me and take your own advice. Besides, if the only way you're getting your "laugh"(s)is from Tupper Lake, Tupper Ware--or whatever--YOU must be the miserable one sitting home job-less and life-less watching soap operas day after day with NO "company" at all. That must be tough.

So do try to come up with a more creative and original comment sometime.

d**n Joseph, give it a rest. Get a life, get a job, find something to do with your old irritating 'shyster' loving self. You ask for everything that's said to you here. You keep coming back for more. As the saying goes, misery loves company. Between you and the Tupper Lake soap opera, I get a good laugh now and again.

No, the truly "sad part" is that since this single, solitary post she's STILL returning here WHINING and WHITEWASHING shysterism!

What's so difficult to get? You don't get the total and utter IRRELEVANCE of a "register," you "agree with fees"(as punishment inflicted on customers making "mistakes" but naturally NOT on BANKS making "mistakes"), so just MUTE your INEFFECTUAL ARGUMENT.

Why do you return to rebut this single, solitary post after so many weeks WHINING about it yet sticking to NONE of the outstanding questions at issue?

Your own time could be best spent by returning to the cheerleading squad for the MINOR LEAGUES--on your way to the school library to bone up on ethical, fair and good-faith business practices. It would doubtless prove to be a quite a TRANSCENDENTAL and life-altering experience for you.

It's no wonder indeed why you're so OVER-EXTENDED: you likely spend every waking moment hovering over this post at your computer lying in tireless wait to type your air-brain rebuttals.

All YOU do when you rebut is talk up to people from the gutter level of EVADED and IRRELEVANT argument so how can I help but "talk down?"

So go ahead: rebut once more to display so conspicuously how CLUE-LESS you actually are.

K? RAH! RAH!

Yah--now that's a Yak's "intelligent" salutation!

Yah, well, "small suggestions" from small minds recommending home-management of money(akin to the constipated mattress remark)IS a piss-poor attempt at ironic insult so don't sugar-coat it just because you get bested.

It speaks more to your own intelligence quotient if you persist in reading and rebutting posts that you supposedly think are so "un-intelligent" and "un-readable."

As I sleep undisturbed daily until I awake naturally I haven't any need of the drugs(like valium)which you abuse to impair my exceptionally relaxing life, thanks!

Besides, MS. "brainiac"(small case well-merited), you may know what goes and comes around, but if you're really laughing your lame-you-know-what behind off then you can hardly know which END is UP!

So why don't you just sit back down where(by your OWN "laughing" description)your mouth must be and keep it shut?

Have a WHOOPEE cushion day!

Yah, here's a question for you - why are you insulting people with small suggestions?

First of all, I didn't insult you at all, I simply asked a question.

Second, to respond to your other ridiculous insult, I didn't read all your responses on here because your posts are not only unintelligent; but unreadable because of your verbage, typing etiquette and grammar.

You need to get a life, or get a prescription for some valium and relax.

To quote you, if "what comes around goes around" which, mr. braniac, should read "What goes around, comes around" then why don't you shut up and let that happen instead of raising your blood pressure about people, like myself, who are now laughing their behinds off at how angry you get?

Have A GREAT day!

The sad part is that this posting started 8/03 and he is still on here complaining. What is so hard to understand? You dont want to keep a register, you dont agree with fees, so CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT! Why are on a board for over a year complaining about it? Your time could probably be better spent by adding up your transactions. Its no wonder why you are overdrawn, you probably spend everyday on the computer typing dumb responses to everyone. All you do when you reply is talk down to people so go ahead respond and show how educated you are, k?

Note too, Nicole, how the shyster-apologist stays most tellingly SILENT about rebutting my post of Nov. 3rd suggesting selfsame exorbitant punitive "fees" inflicted for bank "mistakes." Naturally, Nicole, shyster-apologists seek to KEEP their one-sided "contracts" SOLELY in their own self-interest and to their own self-advantage. After all, they're just out to "make money" at your expense.

You're wasting YOUR time(AND ours)posting here, Val, as you could "spend YOUR time" and effort more beneficially by NOT attempting so ineptly to GULL THE GULLIBLE!

Your white just won't wash here--not on my watch.

With all due respect learn to REMEDIAL READ:

This post is about the shyster automated electronic debit reporting system--not the "whole(corrupt)banking system." That's a separate issue entirely.

How, when, where or why anybody banks is frankly none of your business so "manage" your mouth. My private account's had no "problems."

Just a suggestion but you're sure to be "insulted" more for your IGNORANCE than your supposed "common sense."

My private account wasn't the one "ripped off." Why in God's(or anybody else's)name anybody stays with any bank is likewise none of your business. The purpose of neither this post nor even this site is appeasing your idle, simple-minded curiosity.

Any further not-so-brilliant questions or suggestions????

Just "like clockwork?" Gee, Dud Dave, THAT's an original one!

1)What's up with the "numbering system?" It's to help YOU keep perfect track of each and every insult-point that YOU invariably LOSE.

2)Right! I "spit" the words. You so expertly "spit" the LIES!

3)Still fixated on your shortcomings? You needn't "compare" simply because you have NOTHING to compare WITH. You have nothing to "prove" because you have NOTHING to "prove" WITH.

4)If this is "FUN" for you and makes you "happy" then I'm glad you're so easily and PERVERSELY amused. No doubt standing in front of the mirror watching yourself laughing AT yourself makes you laught all the harder!

5)Your obsessive fixation with this post constitutes a "normal response????" Right! As I work so nice and comfortable here at home for myself(and nobody else)I don't need the lame "resume" that you do. So who's really "laughing" at whom?

6)Bottom line, 'ole loser, you're scarcely HALF-a-"person" if that's how you have to get off.

7)You're getting giddier and more rabid as you go along, Dud Dave. Doubtless you're headed for a big breakdown.

8)Even mechanized automatons and robots can be made to "laugh" but needn't have a "soul." The same holds equally true for internet cranks and stalkers, I suppose.

You may not give a "rat's a*s" what others think about you, Dud Dave, but it's oh-so-painfully clear that you think NEXT TO NOTHING of yourself. And it's no longer either surprising or even the least bit "entertaining." It's just out-and-out pathetic as being the LOSER you are must inevitably be. Sad.

Just "like clockwork?" Gee, Dud Dave, THAT's an original one!

1)What's up with the "numbering system?" It's to help YOU keep perfect track of each and every insult-point that YOU invariably LOSE.

2)Right! I "spit" the words. You so expertly "spit" the LIES!

3)Still fixated on your shortcomings? You needn't "compare" simply because you have NOTHING to compare WITH. You have nothing to "prove" because you have NOTHING to "prove" WITH.

4)If this is "FUN" for you and makes you "happy" then I'm glad you're so easily and PERVERSELY amused. No doubt standing in front of the mirror watching yourself laughing AT yourself makes you laught all the harder!

5)Your obsessive fixation with this post constitutes a "normal response????" Right! As I work so nice and comfortable here at home for myself(and nobody else)I don't need the lame "resume" that you do. So who's really "laughing" at whom?

6)Bottom line, 'ole loser, you're scarcely HALF-a-"person" if that's how you have to get off.

7)You're getting giddier and more rabid as you go along, Dud Dave. Doubtless you're headed for a big breakdown.

8)Even mechanized automatons and robots can be made to "laugh" but needn't have a "soul." The same holds equally true for internet cranks and stalkers, I suppose.

You may not give a "rat's a*s" what others think about you, Dud Dave, but it's oh-so-painfully clear that you think NEXT TO NOTHING of yourself. And it's no longer either surprising or even the least bit "entertaining." It's just out-and-out pathetic as being the LOSER you are must inevitably be. Sad.

Pay close attention, Nicole, Valerie(aka "Val")is one of those VAPID shyster-apologists making the redundant rounds of this site attempting so ineptly to whitewash shysterism.

Just want to point out, Val, you didn't see me sign ANYTHING with ANY bank unless of course you're so self-DELUDEDLY claiming OMNIPOTENCE as well as IGNORANCE.

For Nicole's sake, though, let's analyze indeed exactly what your supposedly sacrosanct(it isn't)"signature card" actually is.

What do I think the "signature card" is? Oooooh! Self-deluded Val really thinks she's got me there!

I don't "think," Val--I KNOW exactly what it is: an utterly WORTHLESS piece of paper without ANY contractual or legal significance whatsover!

What the "signature card" actually is, Nicole, amounts to the bank's lame attempt to protect itself(and its greedy interests)in cases of dispute against its captive customers whom the bank even more lamely attempts to trap and compel to commit to those ONE-SIDED "terms of service"("deposit agreement/personal fee schedule")set exclusively BY the bank and weighted to work exclusively and solely FOR the bank.

What other choice then does the captive customer have except to sign the silly little "signature card" in order to bank?

But don't be fooled by the shyster-apologist's whitewash. And don't falsely presume that simply because the bank prints out a "signature card" with its "terms of service" forms that that automatically and necessarily means that either of those constitute in and of themselves a "contract" or a LEGALLY BINDING "agreement" of ANY KIND(they don't). OBNOXIOUS clauses in such agreements and contracts get challenged AND overturned in courts of law every day! So who do you think you're KIDDING here, Val, except for the kiddies?

REALITY-CHECK, Nicole: Simply because a "signature card" is printed by the bank and "signed" by the captive customer doesn't make it either a fair or a legally binding "contract." Does that about sum it up, Val?

Yeah, you know, I don't believe "Val" is even a real humanoid. In fact, I don't WANT to believe there could exist such a bitter, frustrated, STUPIDITY-SPEWING die-hard OLD FOGY sub-sisting in the world--oh, especially in the US where the homeless and hungry are "afforded" oh-so-many "opportunities and advantages" to lie in squalid gutters nationwide!

No doubt "Val" takes perverted delight in stepping so adroitly over them on her way to-and-from and in-and-out of her customer-fleecing bank!

I wouldn't DARE give you any more "BS" than you already have, Val, because frankly, my dear, you're already PLENTY FULL OF IT!!!!

You don't know me so don't presume to tell me out of your deliberately self-inflicted ignorance what I know(or don't know)about the "meaning" of poverty.

And don't even dare to go there--Iraq or elsewhere--where your brave Republican president is sending teenaged kids(1000-plus dead and counting)to kill and die in his place to make the world safe for Texas oil revenues.

No doubt "Val" heartily supports bombing and burning Iraqi babies to impose those neo-imperialist American "terms of service" throughout the Middle East! Tell us, Val, how many punk kids of your own have you sent to the Iraqi front lines to fight for "freedom and democracy????"

You have to ask yourself indeed: why does she return to whine like an old lady about my SINGLE, SOLITARY post for over two years now with her ranting REACTIONARY rebuttals???? And yet she's still apologizing and making lame excuses for BOFA without any rational or reasoned argument whatever--opting instead to fixate on throwing her lame insults at me?

Could it be that she's SO corrupt, even "criminally so," that no bank but a SHYSTER bank would ever employ her?

You can indeed exist WITHOUT A LIFE--as you've most aptly and repeatedly proved. But hordes of books on fair and good-faith business practices are available for FREE at public libraries--and you needn't even write a "check."

Go for it! Life's way too short to be so ethically BANKRUPT!

With all due respect, if you think that the whole banking system is corrupt then why don't you take all your money out of the banks and keep it at home and manage it yourself? Then you won't have anymore problems.

Just a suggestion. I'm sure I'll be insulted for my common sense.

My question to you is: if you feel you were ripped off the first year, then why in gods name would you stay with them for 3 more years? Just curious.

And just like clockwork. Thanks for more entertainment there 'ole Joe. What's with the numbering system? Working on your math skills?

The whole frickin' world is a 'lie' to you 'ole Joe so it doesn't surprise me that you constantly spit that word out.

I don't need to compare anything with the likes of you 'ole Joe. You're the one that continues to insist that we need to do so. My physical whatever (you can call it what you want since you keep changing your tune) doesn't have any bearing (or does yours). You were the FIRST to bring it up as some need to prove yourself (go ahead and say you didn't - everything else is a 'lie' to you so knock yourself out). I have nothing to prove 'ole Joe. You're the original poster, complainer and whiner. Proof of EVERYTHING lies with you. Good luck with that 'ole Joe.

I AM happy. This is FUN to me. I've never laughed so much in my life! Each response you make gets to me laugh that much harder!

And your posting STYLE of CAPITALIZING every OTHER word is SO much better than a normal response. You keep thinking that 'ole Joe. Let's just hope your resume isn't written in the same fashion. Or perhaps you're living off of hard working tax payer dollars? Say it isn't so 'ole Joe! And here is a prediction: 'Ole Joe will have a job that is possibly CEO or he runs his own business and is financially secure. Any takers? Everything in his life is 'perfect' except for his tiff with BOFA, Comcast and CA DMV. Oh and Joe, please NOTE that I said PREDICTION...NOT that you've ever posted your perfect life...GOT IT? GOOD!

Bottom line 'ole Joe (And I'll add - in reference to Valerie's post below yours) even if you aren't a 'real' person you're more entertaining than most sites on the Internet.

Words never hurt me either 'ole Joe. I don't even have to CAPITALIZE them to feel like I get my point across (unlike you!) BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Keep it coming 'ole Joe - laughter is good for the soul!

Just want to point out - you did sign a contract with the bank. What did you think your signature card was?

You are wasting your time posting here and reading these posts. Spend your time and energy reading your deposit agreement and personal fee schedule (the terms of the contract you signed with the bank.)

I don't believe Joseph is a "real" person. I don't WANT to believe there could be such a nasty, ignorant, venom-spewing person in the world, especially living in the US, where we have been afforeded so many opportunities and advantages. And don't give me any BS about how you are so underpriveleged because you are poor. Try living in Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Kazakstan...the list is endless. You don't begin to know the meaning of the word "poor".

I'm guessing Joseph just wants to stir up trouble and bring readers to this board. You have to ask yourself - why has he been complaining about this for over 2 years, and yet, he is still with Bank of America? Could it be that he is so irresponsible, even criminally so, that no other banks will take him?

You can live without a checking account - 50 cent money orders are available at Safeway if you have to have a "check". Go for it. Life is too short to be so unhappy.

Dear Dud Dave,

Your rambling and raving rants have strayed so far from the topic of this post that in future I'll simply dispense with your petty and pitiful counter-posts with curt lists as befits their paltriness:

1)Apology accepted with no offense taken. Nothing you could ever say(or do)could ever "offend" me, for like words, free speech shall never hurt me.

2)Only an extremely "insecure geek" would outright OBSESS for over a FULL CALENDAR YEAR now about my single-sentence allusion to my "physical CONDITIONING" made way back in early October 2003!!!! Feeling that intimidated and threatened by a single, solitary verbal challenge--THAT's true unadulterated INSECURITY.

3)Who cares? Clearly you do(obsessively so)since you keep HARPING on it so OBESSIVELY! What are you so afraid of?

4)I indeed CAN "prove what(I)look like"--despite the fact that I never once alluded to my looks. The drastic difference between us, Dud Dave, is that you wouldn't WANT to ever display to ANY-body what YOU look like! Doubtless that goes likewise for your Team-mate-in-Triviality, Garrulous Garrett-us.

5)You're distorting and exaggerating--again--just to STROKE your own INSECURE ego. Nobody implied ANY-body would "faint dead away" from ANY-thing. Nobody even used the word "physique"--"magnificent" or otherwise. That's everything you YOURSELF MIS-read into the statement out of your own blatant INSECURITY!

6)Don't LIE(again), Dud Dave. You didn't pose a "question." You intended an INSULT(and it fell FLAT and FLOPPED like everything else you rant about)when you posted the crack about my supposed "blood pressure" and supposed "crack"-use.

7)I wagered a challenge(which STILL stands but you STILL won't take)by way of "STANDARD OF COMPARISON." By that(apart from "physique")you could conceivably compare body-fat index, cholesterol count, resting heart rate--and, indeed, even "blood pressure"(yours must be through the proverbial roof!). But your blatant INSECURITY prevented you from thinking of that--yes!--by ANY "objective standpoint."

8)No, I've never changed my mind after stating a stand that vociferously--in your case quite an infantile(and INSECURE)temper tantrum. As you have absolutely nothing whatever left of any constructive value or relevance to rave about it's just your utter INSECURITY that forces you to return to this post like some INTERNET STALKER. "Sound familiar," Dud Dave?

9)You're merely embarrassing yourself TO yourself, for if you retreat(out of insecurity)to this site strictly for "entertainment" then the rest of your empty existence must be SORELY LACKING!

10)If your LOSER life truly was "very happy" then you wouldn't be WASTING it so INEFFECTUALLY by FIXATING on me so OBSESSIVELY except out of utter INSECURITY!

11)Alas, you outright LIE yet again! I never "attacked the first(considerate and thoughtful)poster, Stephanie, as I never answered her at all. In actual fact I've just rebutted those posters who've "attacked" me FIRST with their INFANTILE INSULTS(like yours)--the FIRST one emanating from Krista.

12)The last laugh's always and ever shall be on you, Dud Dave, for your "attempt(s)at a response" are invariably the most impotent and inept. You can't take that I not only give as good as I get but BETTER than I get--especially from anything you so incompetently put out! That's why you're truly so upset and so INSECURE as you're the consummate and quintissential LOSER!!!! But no one can help that but yourself. GET HELP, Dud Dave, for you so sorely need it!

13)"Stick around" for as long as you like, Dud Dave, and keep on keepin' on looking oh-so SILLY; just try returning to the topic of the post from time to time or the site administrator just might evict you for IRRELEVANCE as well as INSECURITY!!!!

Just DON'T--WHATEVER you do--throw out any of YOUR filthy "bath water" around here, Dud Dave--it's way, WAY too RANCID! And nobody around here wants to catch from it what you've so obviously got: A SUPREMELY INSECURE LOSER'S INFERIORITY COMPLEX!!!!

PS I'd watch that bursting "blood pressure" if I were you....LOSER.

My Dear Dear David in Dallas,

You should know what you are talking about before you go into a raving rant as you did.

The banking industry in this country is gouging it's low depositors with overdraft fees and there are companies out there to help them do just that.

www.jmfa.com, www.strunk.com you will find more at www.bankfees.com. Go to one of these companies sites and read how they promote there programs to incresase a banks non-interest income. Be sure and read some of the testimonials from their customers.

Last fall the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a warning per se to National Banks on these unethical and deceptive practices.

This year the Federal Reserve asked for Comments from Consumer Group and financial institutions on this subject. The Feds had a proposed Guide for banks but wanted input before finalizing it. The cut off date was August 6, 2004.

Last week the Interagency Guidance for Overdraft Protection Programs was released. This is a GUIDE for banks to follow, Regulator are to monitor and report on how the banks are complying in 2 months. As of now, it's just a Guide, but I see a Regulation in the near future.

For those who are having problems with banks you should contact the Federal Researve and your states banking Department of Finance. The address to the Federal Researve can be found at www.federalresearve.gov.

You can verify any of the above statement by going to www.occ.treas.gov or www.federalresearve.gov.

There also is a website with lots of information on this subject at www.bankfees.info.

Now, Davie in Dallas, you are more educated that you were when you posted your ignorant rebuttal.

I hope this helps any of you who are being fleeced by Banks!

Let's wrap up this exceptionally trite debate in short order, shall we?

W the Whitewasher and most all other constipated shyster-apologists typically claim their Divine Right to inflict PUNISHMENT in the form of exorbitant and punitive fees on their naughty mis-behaving child customers who mis-calculate and make mistakes in balancing their silly little checkbook. And naturally only the bank(not the account customer)possesses this extravagant privilege and prerogative to inflict that punishment. That biased(in favor OF the bank), partial(solely TO the bank)divine right of punishment belongs EXCLUSIVELY TO the bank and is ethical, fair and good-faith business practice--or so the shyster-apologists and whitewashers insist. Are you paying attention, Nicole?

Fine. Banks aren't perfect either, are they? Banks miscalculate and make mistakes too, don't they? No? Yes!

Then let's make the bank-customer relationship not only ethical and fair but EQUAL as well. Let the divine right to inflict punishment be TWO(not ONE)-SIDED and run BOTH WAYS!

Meaning? Let's revise those UN-equal and UN-balanced and inherently UN-ethical and UN-fair "terms of service," so-called, and DIVIDE the DIVINE RIGHT OF PUNISHMENT to work BOTH WAYS! Yeah!

Every time the bank is naughty and miscalculates and makes a mistake it should BE "responsible" and TAKE the "responsibility" to CHARGE ITSELF according to its OWN SCHEDULE of exorbitant and punitive FEES for EACH AND EVERY MISTAKE(of whatever sort)in the form of a BIG FAT FEE(and CREDIT)to the damaged or injured bank customer account! How 'bout THAT, shyster-apologists?

One private anecdote I will relate: when I first opened a BOFA account years ago with a rather modest first deposit I was supposed to get(as part of that new account)a COMPLIMENTARY(and snazzy)starter business check folder with check/deposit register and such which the ever-perfect bank then proceeded to MISCALCULATE and MAKE THE MISTAKE of DEBITING MY ACCOUNT SOME $80-PLUS FOR! Ignorant of that I proceeded to write checks against my newly opened account balance which in turn proceeded to BOUNCE and put me in the distorted position of APPEARING to be a passer of "bad checks." ENTIRELY the bank's fault and "mistake." And all I got from the bank were lame letters of regret sent to the recipients of those bounced checks who in their turn aspired to charge me their own schedule of exorbitant, extortionate and PUNITIVE fees for returned checks(which I rightly refused)!

Shouldn't I have received at least a BIG FAT FEE in the form of a BIG FAT CREDIT to my account for the naughty mis-behaving bank's MISCALCULATED "MISTAKE"???? Shouldn't the bank BE "responsible" and TAKE "responsibility" for its miscalculated mistakes by--how did W the Whitewasher put it?--PAYING THE PRICE AND PROCLAIMING PROUDLY(AND POMPOUSLY): WE SHALL BE CHARGED!!!!

Well, let's institute ethical, fair and good-faith business practice into this presently one-sided bank-customer relationship, shall we?

Let's institute reforms that force the banks(as captive business partners)to "live within their means" and "pay for their mistakes" when THEY can't correctly perform those simple arithmetical tasks of addition or subtraction(in bank statement accounting, for instance)and GET CHARGED those SELFSAME exorbitant and PUNITIVE fees they take such PERVERTED DELIGHT in inflicting on their naughty miscalculating account customers!!!!

THAT's ethical! That's fair! That's good-faith business practice!

THAT, my dear Nicole, is CORPORATE "RESPONSIBILITY"!!!!

Let's wrap up this exceptionally trite debate in short order, shall we?

W the Whitewasher and most all other constipated shyster-apologists typically claim their Divine Right to inflict PUNISHMENT in the form of exorbitant and punitive fees on their naughty mis-behaving child customers who mis-calculate and make mistakes in balancing their silly little checkbook. And naturally only the bank(not the account customer)possesses this extravagant privilege and prerogative to inflict that punishment. That biased(in favor OF the bank), partial(solely TO the bank)divine right of punishment belongs EXCLUSIVELY TO the bank and is ethical, fair and good-faith business practice--or so the shyster-apologists and whitewashers insist. Are you paying attention, Nicole?

Fine. Banks aren't perfect either, are they? Banks miscalculate and make mistakes too, don't they? No? Yes!

Then let's make the bank-customer relationship not only ethical and fair but EQUAL as well. Let the divine right to inflict punishment be TWO(not ONE)-SIDED and run BOTH WAYS!

Meaning? Let's revise those UN-equal and UN-balanced and inherently UN-ethical and UN-fair "terms of service," so-called, and DIVIDE the DIVINE RIGHT OF PUNISHMENT to work BOTH WAYS! Yeah!

Every time the bank is naughty and miscalculates and makes a mistake it should BE "responsible" and TAKE the "responsibility" to CHARGE ITSELF according to its OWN SCHEDULE of exorbitant and punitive FEES for EACH AND EVERY MISTAKE(of whatever sort)in the form of a BIG FAT FEE(and CREDIT)to the damaged or injured bank customer account! How 'bout THAT, shyster-apologists?

One private anecdote I will relate: when I first opened a BOFA account years ago with a rather modest first deposit I was supposed to get(as part of that new account)a COMPLIMENTARY(and snazzy)starter business check folder with check/deposit register and such which the ever-perfect bank then proceeded to MISCALCULATE and MAKE THE MISTAKE of DEBITING MY ACCOUNT SOME $80-PLUS FOR! Ignorant of that I proceeded to write checks against my newly opened account balance which in turn proceeded to BOUNCE and put me in the distorted position of APPEARING to be a passer of "bad checks." ENTIRELY the bank's fault and "mistake." And all I got from the bank were lame letters of regret sent to the recipients of those bounced checks who in their turn aspired to charge me their own schedule of exorbitant, extortionate and PUNITIVE fees for returned checks(which I rightly refused)!

Shouldn't I have received at least a BIG FAT FEE in the form of a BIG FAT CREDIT to my account for the naughty mis-behaving bank's MISCALCULATED "MISTAKE"???? Shouldn't the bank BE "responsible" and TAKE "responsibility" for its miscalculated mistakes by--how did W the Whitewasher put it?--PAYING THE PRICE AND PROCLAIMING PROUDLY(AND POMPOUSLY): WE SHALL BE CHARGED!!!!

Well, let's institute ethical, fair and good-faith business practice into this presently one-sided bank-customer relationship, shall we?

Let's institute reforms that force the banks(as captive business partners)to "live within their means" and "pay for their mistakes" when THEY can't correctly perform those simple arithmetical tasks of addition or subtraction(in bank statement accounting, for instance)and GET CHARGED those SELFSAME exorbitant and PUNITIVE fees they take such PERVERTED DELIGHT in inflicting on their naughty miscalculating account customers!!!!

THAT's ethical! That's fair! That's good-faith business practice!

THAT, my dear Nicole, is CORPORATE "RESPONSIBILITY"!!!!

Let's wrap up this exceptionally trite debate in short order, shall we?

W the Whitewasher and most all other constipated shyster-apologists typically claim their Divine Right to inflict PUNISHMENT in the form of exorbitant and punitive fees on their naughty mis-behaving child customers who mis-calculate and make mistakes in balancing their silly little checkbook. And naturally only the bank(not the account customer)possesses this extravagant privilege and prerogative to inflict that punishment. That biased(in favor OF the bank), partial(solely TO the bank)divine right of punishment belongs EXCLUSIVELY TO the bank and is ethical, fair and good-faith business practice--or so the shyster-apologists and whitewashers insist. Are you paying attention, Nicole?

Fine. Banks aren't perfect either, are they? Banks miscalculate and make mistakes too, don't they? No? Yes!

Then let's make the bank-customer relationship not only ethical and fair but EQUAL as well. Let the divine right to inflict punishment be TWO(not ONE)-SIDED and run BOTH WAYS!

Meaning? Let's revise those UN-equal and UN-balanced and inherently UN-ethical and UN-fair "terms of service," so-called, and DIVIDE the DIVINE RIGHT OF PUNISHMENT to work BOTH WAYS! Yeah!

Every time the bank is naughty and miscalculates and makes a mistake it should BE "responsible" and TAKE the "responsibility" to CHARGE ITSELF according to its OWN SCHEDULE of exorbitant and punitive FEES for EACH AND EVERY MISTAKE(of whatever sort)in the form of a BIG FAT FEE(and CREDIT)to the damaged or injured bank customer account! How 'bout THAT, shyster-apologists?

One private anecdote I will relate: when I first opened a BOFA account years ago with a rather modest first deposit I was supposed to get(as part of that new account)a COMPLIMENTARY(and snazzy)starter business check folder with check/deposit register and such which the ever-perfect bank then proceeded to MISCALCULATE and MAKE THE MISTAKE of DEBITING MY ACCOUNT SOME $80-PLUS FOR! Ignorant of that I proceeded to write checks against my newly opened account balance which in turn proceeded to BOUNCE and put me in the distorted position of APPEARING to be a passer of "bad checks." ENTIRELY the bank's fault and "mistake." And all I got from the bank were lame letters of regret sent to the recipients of those bounced checks who in their turn aspired to charge me their own schedule of exorbitant, extortionate and PUNITIVE fees for returned checks(which I rightly refused)!

Shouldn't I have received at least a BIG FAT FEE in the form of a BIG FAT CREDIT to my account for the naughty mis-behaving bank's MISCALCULATED "MISTAKE"???? Shouldn't the bank BE "responsible" and TAKE "responsibility" for its miscalculated mistakes by--how did W the Whitewasher put it?--PAYING THE PRICE AND PROCLAIMING PROUDLY(AND POMPOUSLY): WE SHALL BE CHARGED!!!!

Well, let's institute ethical, fair and good-faith business practice into this presently one-sided bank-customer relationship, shall we?

Let's institute reforms that force the banks(as captive business partners)to "live within their means" and "pay for their mistakes" when THEY can't correctly perform those simple arithmetical tasks of addition or subtraction(in bank statement accounting, for instance)and GET CHARGED those SELFSAME exorbitant and PUNITIVE fees they take such PERVERTED DELIGHT in inflicting on their naughty miscalculating account customers!!!!

THAT's ethical! That's fair! That's good-faith business practice!

THAT, my dear Nicole, is CORPORATE "RESPONSIBILITY"!!!!

I stand corrected. At no time did you post any form of physical threat. I apologize if any offense was taken.

On the other hand, insecurity is for those that MUST boast about their 'conditioning'. Neither Garrett nor myself have felt the need to let everyone know that - unlike you Joe. Yes you said it in response to a question I posed, but you could have just simply stated that you did not have high blood pressure and leave it at that. And bottom line: You CAN'T prove what you look like so who cares? Only insecure geeks have to boast about themselves on the internet...sound familiar 'ole Joe?

Oh and just to set the record straight here are YOUR words: "I'd wager you your entire BofA account ANYTIME--sight unseen--that my physical conditioning SURPASSES YOURS by any and every standard of comparison. TALK IS CHEAP! Would you be UP to THAT, Dave?"

So from an objective standpoint I believe it is safe to assume that by your last statement you imply that I would just faint dead away from your magnificent physique. Hopefully you meant just fainting 'ole Joe and the capital "UP" and "THAT" certainly didn't imply anything else. Yeah right! Just wanted to throw that in there in the event you decided to deny the insecurity of professing your 'conditioning.'

As to my posting again after indicating that I wouldn't - again who cares? I changed my friggin' mind 'ole Joe! I suppose you've never done that?

Embarrass my self to whom? You 'ole Joe? Ha! The other complainers, whiners and conspiracy theorists that support you on this thread? Ha! This is frickin' entertainment! I could give a rat's a*s as to what ANY internet poster thinks of me or what I write.

I'm very happy with my life. I don't have a myriad of posts on this website complaining about the Big Bad Banks, Comcast and apparently the CA DMV because I know how to interact with the financial world.

You can't even agree to disagree 'ole Joe. You attacked the first poster that tried to offer advice to HELP YOU OUT. And your attacks are extremely venomous.

I could go on and on 'ole Joe, but as I've said before, you post to hear(see) yourself talk. The only ones listening are your conspiracy cronies and those of us that laugh constantly at your attempt at a response.

And just to be clear, I'll stick around. You're too entertaining to throw out with the bath water 'ole Joe.

W???? That must stand for WHITEWASH! What else?

Well, W most REDUNDANTLY rehashes that same CONSTIPATED, tedious and tired "delayed debit" alibi. Doctors of these shyster-apologists sorely need to prescribe for them more potent PURGATIVES!

No matter "AT(WHAT)TIME" debits are done--most of that difficulty could most effectively be eliminated with an automated system properly programmed(with readily available 21st-century technology)simply to REJECT those debits exceeding available account funds.

But as W readily admits she's "heard this argument/complaint too many times to remember."

Translation: W's bank has fleeced and ripped off its own account customers COUNTLESS TIMES and has absolutely NO INTENTION AT ALL WHATEVER of stopping now--"AT(ANY)TIME!"

"There's no need to go into(further)detail," indeed, as this shysterism is already well-documented.

"But, I mean, come ON!" Stop preaching so pompously about "responsibility" until it goes(ethically, fairly and with good faith)BOTH WAYS--as in CORPORATE "responsibility" partnering with PERSONAL "responsibility."

It's "no one else's" but the bank customer's "responsibility," W apologizes. Why's that?

Isn't commercial banking a TWO-PARTY, TWO-SIDED business relationship? No? Then why isn't "responsibility" equally, ethically and fairly SHARED????

Listen up most attentively to THAT question, Nicole, as the bank's shyster-apologist retorts so tellingly with her dictatorial and DRACONIAN interpretation of the not-so-mutual bank-customer relationship:

"The bank is OUT TO MAKE MONEY and if you aren't going to keep an eye on your money and spend only what you have then you're going to PAY THE PRICE."

That just about says it all, doesn't it, Nicole? Just pause a moment to critically analayze that shyster-apologist statement:

"The bank is OUT TO MAKE MONEY"--even if it's most conveniently at the bank customer's EXPENSE and DIS-ADVANTAGE. That's nothing less than the irreducible definition of the banking corporation: GREED--pure and simple.

So should the poorest bank customers mis-calculate in the slightest then that's just tough for them. Those customers, W boasts callously, shall "PAY THE PRICE."

So should any bank customer mis-calculate with an overdraft--no matter how minute an overdraft, no matter how minute the customer's account balance--the bank shall deliberately COMPOUND that customer's debt with exorbitant, extortionate and PUNITIVE "fees" until it BLEEDS even the poorest customer's account TO DEATH like some BLOOD-SUCKING PARASITE. Ethical and fair?

So pose some simple questions to yourself, Nicole:

1)Who SETS the "price" the poorest of mis-calculating customers are forced to "pay" for their "mistakes?" The BANK does.

So what that shyster-apologist, W, is telling you: the parasite bank will prey upon its own poorest CAPTIVE account customers and PILFER and PLUNDER their accounts as completely(and ONE-SIDEDLY)as possible simply to "make money"--simply because the bank ALONE possesses the one-sided POWER to do so and get away with it scot-free! THAT's what's truly "just ridiculous."

2)Is THAT ethical, fair and good-faith business practice? You decide.

W's "BUT YOU WILL BE CHARGED!!" attitude is typical of those too IMPERIOUS and too INDIFFERENT to care a tinker's d**n about their poorest and most disadvantaged account customers.

"Bottom line," W apologizes, "it's your responsibility not the bank's..."--the typical attitude displayed by shysters out to perpetuate the greatest profiteering RETURN(their REAL "bottom line")on an unfair and unjust SHYSTER SYSTEM.

And that GREEDY and GRUDGING attitude on the part of your heavy-handed shyster-apologists, my dear Nicole, is the "real reason(for ANYONE)to complain."

Garrulous Garrett-us,

For somebody who deems it "unnecessary to perform the arduous task of simple" REMEDIAL READING I'd "be careful of mocking anyone else's ability" at arithmetic--especially since this post has NEVER been about my personal bank account.

Suuuure Garrett-us, you never mis-quote out of context: NOWHERE in that quote of mine which you mis-recited out of context is ANY boasting done of the word "physique."

"Physical CONDITIONING" are the words actually used though my wager STILL STANDS and is extended to you as well if you THINK you're up to it. Just use the site administrator as an intermediary, Garrett-us, and let me know. TALK'S CHEAP!

Thanks all the same, though, for making yourself look so LAME and oh-SO SILLY by mis-quoting me so blatantly!

Now let's CORRECTLY quote poor DUD DAVE to put my "physical CONDITIONING" wager into its TRUTHFUL context:

1)"It will save you the cost of high blood pressure medicine in the future(or perhaps it's too late for that?)"

2)"I won't visit this thread any longer since you listen to no one but yourself and POST like SOME five-year OLD on CRACK!" Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!!!!

3)"Though I know your post will cause one of Joe's crack INDUCED responses as most sane people's explanation has in the past,..."

You fault my "conditioning" challenge after such an infantile litany of insults? INFERIORITY and INSECURITY seek company, I suppose....

"Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-do"???? We all know you're extremely SPASTIC, Garrett-us, there's no need to prove it any more ADMIRABLY(and REDUNDANTLY)than you already have!

As for the "one about the 'train wreck,'" you let YOURSELF down(again)on that one, Gar-Gar. I just RETURNED your "analogy" quote--I didn't LABEL it as such(here's where those "grammar text-books" of yours would come in REAL handy!).

Comeback or "observation"--what's it matter? No matter how semantically you slant it, Gar, your immature "metaphor" is STILL as UN-original and DULL as you yourself must be!

As for your admitted "Wee Willy Complex" you clearly can't "share" with ANY man that which you admittedly DON'T HAVE! You'd know all about those "$2.99/minute" telephone lines, then, would you--for apparent(and finite)reasons????!!!!

Sorry, but you can't "let go" of what you haven't even a good handle on. So it's back to the grammar school chalkboard for you, Gar. Try, try again. Anything else?

To HONEST "jousting"--if you can cut it--but I doubt it. With that last post you didn't even make the grade.

Poor Dud Dave.

I'm starting to feel extremely sorry for you as you stoop so low as to outright LYING in front of everybody simply to appease your own blatant INFERIORITY COMPLEX! That's not my problem(it's yours), though, and I sorely regret that I can't help you resolve it.

But NOWHERE in this post can you DIRECTLY QUOTE me as professing to possess a "perfect physical form" much less as "threaten(-ing)(you)physically"(this site wouldn't permit it!)simply to so ineptly attempt to "pump up" your own DE-flated and SELF-belittled "ego." Nor can you at all document your outrageously exaggerated assertion of my supposedly having "hundreds of posts" at this site when in actual fact there's just a hand-ful at best.

So why outright lie, distort, exaggerate, fabricate, falsify and invent so blatantly--except as some PITIFUL attempt at making yourself look(and feel)better?

If I simply "seek sympathy"(I don't), Dave, then you're the one who most rightfully garners and deserves it most as all the "miasma" suffered so severely is ALL YOURS and YOURS ALONE.

You're a sad, SAD and manifestly MASOCHISTIC case, Dave, inviting such self-inflicted punishment. But don't complicate your seeming sickness even further by pathologically playing fast and loose with the truth. It just makes you look SILLY as well as SICK.

Awhile ago you ranted: "I won't visit this thread any longer since you listen to no one but yourself and POST like SOME five-year OLD on CRACK!" Remember, Dave?

A man of your DISINGENUOUS and MENDACIOUS word, are you Dave?

ALL you've proved so admirably, Dave, is that you're the only one here who's CRACKED! And that it's most likely in your own best interest(and benefit)that you effectively PUT YOURSELF AWAY if not simply GO AWAY! After all, you can't embarrass yourself any more than you've already done.

GET WELL SOON, Dave!

Poor Dud Dave.

I'm starting to feel extremely sorry for you as you stoop so low as to outright LYING in front of everybody simply to appease your own blatant INFERIORITY COMPLEX! That's not my problem(it's yours), though, and I sorely regret that I can't help you resolve it.

But NOWHERE in this post can you DIRECTLY QUOTE me as professing to possess a "perfect physical form" much less as "threaten(-ing)(you)physically"(this site wouldn't permit it!)simply to so ineptly attempt to "pump up" your own DE-flated and SELF-belittled "ego." Nor can you at all document your outrageously exaggerated assertion of my supposedly having "hundreds of posts" at this site when in actual fact there's just a hand-ful at best.

So why outright lie, distort, exaggerate, fabricate, falsify and invent so blatantly--except as some PITIFUL attempt at making yourself look(and feel)better?

If I simply "seek sympathy"(I don't), Dave, then you're the one who most rightfully garners and deserves it most as all the "miasma" suffered so severely is ALL YOURS and YOURS ALONE.

You're a sad, SAD and manifestly MASOCHISTIC case, Dave, inviting such self-inflicted punishment. But don't complicate your seeming sickness even further by pathologically playing fast and loose with the truth. It just makes you look SILLY as well as SICK.

Awhile ago you ranted: "I won't visit this thread any longer since you listen to no one but yourself and POST like SOME five-year OLD on CRACK!" Remember, Dave?

A man of your DISINGENUOUS and MENDACIOUS word, are you Dave?

ALL you've proved so admirably, Dave, is that you're the only one here who's CRACKED! And that it's most likely in your own best interest(and benefit)that you effectively PUT YOURSELF AWAY if not simply GO AWAY! After all, you can't embarrass yourself any more than you've already done.

GET WELL SOON, Dave!

Poor Dud Dave.

I'm starting to feel extremely sorry for you as you stoop so low as to outright LYING in front of everybody simply to appease your own blatant INFERIORITY COMPLEX! That's not my problem(it's yours), though, and I sorely regret that I can't help you resolve it.

But NOWHERE in this post can you DIRECTLY QUOTE me as professing to possess a "perfect physical form" much less as "threaten(-ing)(you)physically"(this site wouldn't permit it!)simply to so ineptly attempt to "pump up" your own DE-flated and SELF-belittled "ego." Nor can you at all document your outrageously exaggerated assertion of my supposedly having "hundreds of posts" at this site when in actual fact there's just a hand-ful at best.

So why outright lie, distort, exaggerate, fabricate, falsify and invent so blatantly--except as some PITIFUL attempt at making yourself look(and feel)better?

If I simply "seek sympathy"(I don't), Dave, then you're the one who most rightfully garners and deserves it most as all the "miasma" suffered so severely is ALL YOURS and YOURS ALONE.

You're a sad, SAD and manifestly MASOCHISTIC case, Dave, inviting such self-inflicted punishment. But don't complicate your seeming sickness even further by pathologically playing fast and loose with the truth. It just makes you look SILLY as well as SICK.

Awhile ago you ranted: "I won't visit this thread any longer since you listen to no one but yourself and POST like SOME five-year OLD on CRACK!" Remember, Dave?

A man of your DISINGENUOUS and MENDACIOUS word, are you Dave?

ALL you've proved so admirably, Dave, is that you're the only one here who's CRACKED! And that it's most likely in your own best interest(and benefit)that you effectively PUT YOURSELF AWAY if not simply GO AWAY! After all, you can't embarrass yourself any more than you've already done.

GET WELL SOON, Dave!

Poor Dud Dave.

I'm starting to feel extremely sorry for you as you stoop so low as to outright LYING in front of everybody simply to appease your own blatant INFERIORITY COMPLEX! That's not my problem(it's yours), though, and I sorely regret that I can't help you resolve it.

But NOWHERE in this post can you DIRECTLY QUOTE me as professing to possess a "perfect physical form" much less as "threaten(-ing)(you)physically"(this site wouldn't permit it!)simply to so ineptly attempt to "pump up" your own DE-flated and SELF-belittled "ego." Nor can you at all document your outrageously exaggerated assertion of my supposedly having "hundreds of posts" at this site when in actual fact there's just a hand-ful at best.

So why outright lie, distort, exaggerate, fabricate, falsify and invent so blatantly--except as some PITIFUL attempt at making yourself look(and feel)better?

If I simply "seek sympathy"(I don't), Dave, then you're the one who most rightfully garners and deserves it most as all the "miasma" suffered so severely is ALL YOURS and YOURS ALONE.

You're a sad, SAD and manifestly MASOCHISTIC case, Dave, inviting such self-inflicted punishment. But don't complicate your seeming sickness even further by pathologically playing fast and loose with the truth. It just makes you look SILLY as well as SICK.

Awhile ago you ranted: "I won't visit this thread any longer since you listen to no one but yourself and POST like SOME five-year OLD on CRACK!" Remember, Dave?

A man of your DISINGENUOUS and MENDACIOUS word, are you Dave?

ALL you've proved so admirably, Dave, is that you're the only one here who's CRACKED! And that it's most likely in your own best interest(and benefit)that you effectively PUT YOURSELF AWAY if not simply GO AWAY! After all, you can't embarrass yourself any more than you've already done.

GET WELL SOON, Dave!

Ok, I work at a bank and I have heard this argument/complaint too many times to remember. There's no need to go into detail because many of the previous responses have done it so well, but I mean come on...first of all, an ATM as well as the balance you would receive from a teller is the most accurate balance AT THAT TIME. Many purchases such as gas takes 2 to 3 days at the least to actually clear your bank account.

When you initially swipe your card for gas only $1 is taken out to verify you have an active, open bank account, which is why you can pump a full tank of gas with only $2 in your account. Eventually the entire amount for the gas comes out...many purchases come out of your account and go back in just to make sure the money is there. The ATM nor the teller have ANY idea what you're buying and what you've written checks for and so on, therefore how can they give you an ACCURATE balance?? That is YOUR responsiblity, and no one else's.

The bank is out to make money and if you aren't going to keep an eye on your money and spend only what you have then you're going to pay the price. Invest in a check register, don't rely on the ATM machine or the teller to let you know what you have, that's just ridiculous. As soon as you write a check or get gas or swipe your debit card or get money from the ATM subtract it from your register don't wait for it to clear. Also many banks have courtesy coverage that is just "added" to your account after 3 months or so...at my bank it starts at $20 and goes to $500 which means it will let you overdraw your account up to five hundred dollars. It's there to help you (if you write a check to pay for something it will be paid and not be returned) but it can also hurt you if you don't pay attention to your account. (You can opt out of courtesy coverage at most financial institutions) Also debit cards have purchasing limit and a withdrawal limit at my bank it's $1000 and $400 so you can use the card up to that with nonsufficient funds.
Bottom line, it's your responsibility not the bank's and not the ATM's.. get a check register... as soon as you withdraw, write a check whatever subtract it out, it's always worked for me!! Stop blaming everyone else for your mistakes, take control of it so you can have a real reason to complain.

Josephus,

For someone who feels it unnecessary to perform the arduous task of simple addition and subtraction on a daily basis to balance a checkbook, I would be careful of mocking anyone else's ability at counting small numbers.

Suuuure Josephus, you never boast of your physique:

"I'd wager you your entire BofA account ANYTIME--sight unseen--that my physical conditioning SURPASSES YOURS by any and every standard of comparison."

...just a passing comment, right?

Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-do
I have a perfect puzzle for you

The one about the "train wreck":

You let me down on this one Jo-Jo. For the self-proclaimed professional, published writer you claim to be, I would hope you would have known that my usage of "train wreck" was not an analogy, but a metaphor. You can verify this in middle school grammar textbooks (next to the math books that would teach you the principles of simple addition/subtraction necessary for checkbook reconciliation). Also, it was not a comeback...it was an observation of the email thread. You could have figured this out through use of "context clues" (see recommended grammar texts above).

You're pondering if I have the "Wee Willy Complex". I will not address your fascination with the size and/or girth of that which I share with no man. I'm sure you can fulfill that need for just $2.99/minute elsewhere.

If you're not greedy, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-do

...sorry, can't let go of the short guy issue.

To friendly jousting,

I will confirm that Joe as professed his perfect physical form in response to my post(s) in this venue. Sadly he also felt the need to threaten me physically (as is common with steroid inflated egos). I'm sure this post will prompt another such tirade.

I will give Joe credit for his last post. The INCESSANT capitalization of EVERY other WORD that can be seen in HIS usual response (besides the name calling and physical attacks) is thankfully absent. Seems he sought out a tutor on how to post like a sane person. We'll see how well he retains that ability in his future posts. I'm betting it's a short lived phenomenon.

The fact that Joe has hundreds of post complaining about various other organizations only lends credence to the fact that he is a chronic complainer and his not happy unless he can whine and moan about how life has treated him so poorly.

Perhaps he seeks sympathy for this (yes, Joe please try and deny it!) and posting on this forum is the only place he can find other whiners and complainers that will sympathize with his constant plight. He doesn't wish to engage in logical conversation and see that there might be ways to avoid or fix his problems. He only seeks kindred souls that will support his miasma.

Sock it to me Joe! Can't wait to read the nauseous prose you'll come back with this time. You have my permission to use 'sock it to me' in some form of physical threat as is your wont.

....whether they're signed or not!!!!

Oh Nicole, you have so MUCH yet to learn about life so I'll make every earnest effort to assist you for as long as you persist in coming "back."

By opening an account I'm with "tacit(silent)agreement" automatically entering into a contract with the bank--so YOU(and perhaps the bank)say!

"This is the way it works"--so YOU(and perhaps the bank)say!

Is that really the full force of your rational and reasoned argument? Well, what do either I or the "law" say? Why don't you find out?

I certainly didn't say. And what I say(or don't say)counts equally as much as what you or the banks say, don't you think? And I say--again--it's NOT a "contract."

LEGAL AND BINDING "contracts," you see, require at least TWO CONSENTING PARTIES to be ethical, fair and ENFORCEABLE under the law.

So your superficial trip to the bank to pick up its "terms of service" forms was an utterly USELESS exerciwse and proves only YOURSELF "wrong in the process." Nobody needs a business finance student to tell us what THOSE say. Now a trip to your nearest LAW LIBRARY to read your state's statutes or federal banking regulations concerning commercial banking contracts would prove far more beneficial--and enlightening--for you. What do THOSE say? Find out.

No matter. Bank information forms constitute neither law nor contracts. Got that? Good.

Now don't you HONESTLY think that "terms of service," so-called, that are ONE-SIDED, PARTIAL(TO THE BANK)AND BIASED(IN FAVOR OF THE BANK)are INHERENTLY UNETHICAL, UN-FAIR AND WITHOUT GOOD FAITH???? Of course they are as they're deliberately designed to protect the bank's(not the customers')best self-interests!

That's why bank customers could make a very good case for defying and challenging such "terms of service" in civil courts of law--as they in fact often do in "class-action suits"--to TEST the ETHICALNESS and FAIRNESS of such "terms of service."

Trouble is, few bank customers have either the time or the money it takes to make such successful court challenges against unethical and unfair business practices. But that doesn't make those "terms of service" any more valid.

Real-World Lesson #1: In cases of dispute civil courts of LAW(not banks or uninformed students)decide which "contracts"--whether signed or unsigned--are LEGALLY BINDING.

Now let's keep it technical since you've learned some adult manners since your first post and don't presume(so incorrectly)to tell me that you "understand why(I'm)upset."(you evidently don't).

That banks rip off their customers is a non-question as it's self-evident. But once you admit that overdraft fees are "excessive" then you demonstrate that you're slowly starting to see the proverbial light!

And by your own rather ill-logic you also "could agree" that the customers would indeed "never come across this issue" at all if the bank fees(at best)were NON-EXISTENT in the FIRST PLACE or if the bank fees(at worst)were more FAIR AND REASONABLE--REGARDLESS of how carefully or carelessly they balanced their silly little checkbook(that CONSTIPATED argument again!).

Real-World Lesson #2: That's what civil courts of LAW(not banks or uninformed students)are for--to decide the FAIRNESS and REASONABLENESS of laws and so-called "contracts."

Now don't revert to your adolescent childishness by preaching to poor people to consult with social services departments about how to "budget their funds better." People that poor simply don't possess enough funds to "budget." Perhaps you've been born with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth and that's all well and good for YOU. But wait until you have your own kids to "budget" for before presuming so POMPOUSLY to tell adults how to "budget" for theirs.

Anyway, you've already learned from college how to resort to the contrived art of the INVALID COMPARISON. But whether it's a "federal crime to write bad checks"(or not)is another matter altogether and is as INVALID as it is IRRELEVANT.

This post is about electronic debit overdrafts--NOT the passing of "bad checks" or fraudulent paper instruments. They're entirely different so do decide and make up your uninformed mind first about which one you want to argue!

Recite, instead, the supposed "federal law" that makes electronic debit overdrafts a "crime."

You see, Nicole, you're STILL "mis"-speaking with your invalid and irrelevant "theft" thesis. That's why banks institute automated "daily limits" on ATM withdrawals to reduce the chances of DELIBERATE abuse.

You're STILL "mis"-speaking even further with your rather presumptuous and sweeping OVER-GENERALIZATION "theft" thesis and that's simply because you're not THINKING as well as READING comprehensively.

At the outset of this post I stated quite unequivocally that no "bad checks" were written by any party to the matter(that's your READING deficiency).

Now so far as a bank customer getting potentially "prosecuted" for "theft" goes--what ANY court prosecutor would be COMPELLED to prove is INTENT on the part of the customer to de-fraud the bank. Without INTENT there would be no "crime." And obviously this post is addressing UN-intentional electronic debit overdrafts. So your rather ill-conceived "theft" thesis is equally invalid and irrelevant(that's your THINKING deficiency).

Real-World Lesson #3: Criminal courts of law(not banks or uninformed students)decide what "theft" constitutes an actual "crime" of INTENT.

Now you've so OBVIOUSLY got a LOT more to LEARN(as do we all)but by suggesting a fairer and more PROGRESSIVE "sliding scale" for admittedly "excessive" overdraft fees you've demonstrated at least a RUDIMENTARY capacity for learning something about REASONABLENESS in FAIR AND GOOD FAITH BUSINESS PRACTICES.

So there's optimistic hope that you'll finally at long last come to learn the REALITY about all the rest once you forget going to the bank--or even to the classroom--and go more to pay informed visits to the appropriate library!

As for ballots cast at the polls there's one and only one "right(and FREE)choice" for each and every individual voter--according to their own individual conscience.

I'll be back for as long as you are--I'm "sure"--or until you're not only "done" but "done"-in!

You needn't go out of your way proving it to everybody!

Ha! You're "quite amusing" yourself, Gar--or at least you most ineptly attempt to be!

Yes, I've done several posts at this site. So what? Do the selfsame "advanced search" for any number of the without-a-life shyster-apologists named and you'll readily discover that most of them apparently make a CAREER out of posting here. That's their prerogative--and mine.

All beside the point though, Gar: your pretty impotent attempt at whimsical wit is more buffoonish than anything but at least you get great credit for readily admitting its "complete irrelevance."

But don't misquote me out of context just to try to make yourself feel better(or bigger). I've never boasted about being a "dominant physical specimen"--"big and strong" or otherwise--except to reassure poor Dud Dave(he knows who he is)who accused me sight unseen of being a crackhead suffering from high blood pressure.

You've demonstrated your albeit limited ability to count small numbers up to "about 4-5 times." Now if you could only read, Gar, you would've found the precise reference to my height and your idle curiosity would've been amply appeased.

I apologize though if my superior health-and-fitness level makes you feel so small, inferior and insecure. But if I'm "portraying every symptom of the Napoleon Complex" then you're displaying so conspicuously every symptom of the Wee-Willy Complex. Pity!

But speaking of a "flashy analogy to drive into the ground," Gar, tell everybody: how long did it take you to come up with the original one about the "train wreck????" So clever that comeback--as if breaking your silence amounts to anything the least bit relevant!

As for the rest, Gar, there's really no need to loosen any tirade upon you--long or short--as you do a pretty commendable job of summarizing all your most evident SHORTCOMINGS all by yourself! And no help for that is needed from me or anybody else!

You've proved beyond any doubt that you're quite the court jester, Gar, and that's about as irrelevant as you could ever get to be! Anything else?

Hey Joseph
Just to make it real clear just how fraudulant banks are. Have you ever had your bank ask you if it was ok to loan your deposits out? Because your deposit doesn't belong to the bank, they would by law,have to get your permission to do that. It is also against the law for the bank to loan its own money out!

SO,where are they getting the money from? They are getting it from the PROMISSARY NOTE that we sign!!! The promissary note is a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT,just like cash and is deposited in the bank "just like cash". And then it is monetized,(checkbook entries up to 9 times the amount of the promissary note),this is how money is created out of thin air by the banks,through fractionalized banking, then they pay the car dealer,realtor or whoever and keep the rest! Then turn around and claim they made you a loan.When you or I make a loan,our assets decrease and our liabilities increase. When the bank makes a so-called loan,both their assets and liabilities increase!! THERE IS NO LOAN!!!

The constitution at article 1 section 10 says "no state shall make ANYTHING but gold or silver COIN a tender in payment of DEBT. This is basic constitution and has NEVER been ammended away. The operative words here are DEBT and COIN,the constitution prohibits emitting bills of credit,(federal reserve notes backed by nothing),checkbook entries. Congress shall have the power to COIN MONEY and regulate the value thereof and set the standards of weights and measures of that COIN and of foreign COIN.

Since FDR took all the gold and silver coin out of circulation in 1933 it is impossible to pay a debt,we can only defer payment until we have gold and silver coin again. Do you honestly think the international bankers (federal reserve) will ever institute lawful money again when they have the whole world in debt slavery and have become our true rulers. If you don't think these things are so,then I challange you to do some research!

We all are heading for a dictatorship in this country,in our lifetime,if we don't start educating our selves about the nature of credit and what real money is. Banks are the true swindlers and con-artists in the real world or the real matrix!!

I hope some were enlightened,and Joseph keep up the good work and don't get discouraged because some of the sheeple will learn from you. You are what I call a wordsmith extrordinaire.

God bless

Joseph- you say that you did not sign a contract with BOA. However, by keeping your account open you are entering into a contract. That is the way it works. By the way, I stopped by BofA today and requested the Terms of Service for their accounts. They gave them to me and a glanced over them. (I had to have some anyway for a paper - figured what the hell I'll prove Joseph wrong in the process). In the Terms of Service it does state the overdraft fees and policy very clearly. It also says that you can have some charges reversed under certain conditions. I do understand why you're upset. You see it as the bank ripping off the customer. And yes, the overdraft fees are excessive. However, I would think you could agree that if everyone properly balanced their checkbook and wrote down every fee, and every debit, and every check they would never come across this issue.

Now on to another issue that was brought up before. The father (I think) with the kid who needed items from the store. This is, indeed a sad situation. I understand this happens. However, if a person finds themselves in this situation often it would be best to either request help from the local Department of Social and Health Services or budget their funds better next time so that they have some money at the end of the month just in case.

Now with regards to wether or not it is stealing. If overdrawing your account is not theft then WHY is it a federal crime to write bad checks? If you don't believe me look it up. Any amount of two hundred and fifty dollars and you can (probably won't be but it's a possibility still) be prosecuted. Now is it the same as walking into a store and stealing twenty dollars worth of food? No. But it is still theft. The extra money a person spends does not belong to them (you're right on this I mispoke earlier when I said it belonged to the bank - it does belong to the customers - just not this customer).

Now I do believe there should be NSF and OD fees. However, I also agree that some banks charge too much. Maybe they should consider revising it. I would personally suggest it be linked to the amount the person overdraws the account. Maybe 20% on top of the amount they overspend. (ex: you overspend one dollar you are charge $1.20 or you overspend seven hundred dollars and you will be charged $840).

Well I am done for now, however I have faith that someone will have some ranting, and raving to do about this article too. So I am sure I'll be back. Until next time enjoy your day. Hope to see everyone out at the polls tomorrow (and hopefully we make the right choice while we're there)

For the fans of this victimized soul that can't get enough of his attempts at justifying a complete lack of responsibility, please do a search on this site for "joseph" and "berkeley" under the "advanced search" option. From here you will see Joey's rants about the California DMV, Comcast, Symantec, Providian, MSN, First USA Bank and Premier Bank. Although it is mostly the same repetitive corrupt talk with a number of personal insults to all who dare challenge Joey (and the occassional reminder that he is also a dominant physical speciman who is in better shape than you), it is still quite amusing.

Sorry for the complete irrelevance to the topic of this post. I have been watching this train wreck for far too long to remain silent anymore. Also, I am interested in knowing how tall Joey is...he is portraying virtually every symptom of The Napolean Complex. And, yes Joey, we all know how big and strong you are.

Also, to shorten the tirade I would love to be unleashed upon me, let me clear a few things up. I am a shyster apologist with shysteristic apologies and excuses for the gullible and the ignorant. I am a proponent of the insidious automated system. Not agreeing whole-heartedly with your theories leaves me nothing short of ignorant. I am a sheep, a swindler, a petty shyster-apologist who invariably reverts to retreating behind fine-print "bank terms"--like maggots beneath rotting boards (seriously, man, you've used that analogy about 4-5 times...break out another "d**n The Man" book and pick out another flashy analogy to drive into the ground).

Dud Dave, you FLOP! Stop projecting your own crack-USE upon me! Pitiful!

Thanks, Bill, for the way-with-words compliments! It's gratifying to a professional writer(no pumping gas for me, Nicole)hailing from your neck of the woods in northwest Florida. GOD BLESS AND KEEP you as well! But it's the witless ill-mentality of those like the witch's brew "stew"-stirrer from Ocala, Cher(i), that prompted me to exit the state.

Full Halloween moons really do bring the lunatic fringe out of their crackpot closets though!

First of all, Cher(i), I'm "bright" enough at least to get a NEUROTIC and INSECURE rise out of YOU, obviously.

It's equally "obvious" that you must be easily intimidated, and that if I'm the "one being controlled," it most certainly isn't by you or any of your WHACKED OUT ilk!

I care LESS about ANY of the "re-actions" I get here. NONE trouble me in the LEAST.

But MY "definition of insanity" is personified by some psycho-neurotic FRUITCAKE from Ocala repeatedly pretending to practice AMATEUR psycho-analysis over the internet and "expecting" not to eventually get herself certified and committed!

So you might "want to ponder YOUR actions" if you don't want the site administrator to report you to your state's PSYCHO WARD for mal-practicing your loony tune LUNACY without a professional license!

A footnote to Nicole: you go, girl! You keep spewing your "venom" so long as you're arguing for what you believe is RIGHT--even if it IS immature and uninformed. You'll grow up eventually.

Whatever you do, Nicole, don't be like the "obviously" insecure, neurotic and mentally-"challenged" amongst us. Don't be like Cher(i)!

....when some rabid toddler would come out of the nursery woodwork ranting and raving so incoherently in defense of a pretty illiterate term paper on shyster-apologism! She must somehow be related to that rabid cheerleader mother! But she sure as HECK ain't won no spelling bees lately!

You know what though? YOU are a sad, SAD kid. Sad in the sense of your deliberately self-inflicted ILLITERACY.

And if you've been banking for some three whole years it's obvious that you've got a whole lot more to learn about LIFE than about business finance. But you won't learn it in any college classroom--nor by apologizing for shysterism.

You write that you've read YOUR "agreements." Well, you haven't read MINE. So don't speak out of deliberately self-inflicted IGNORANCE and presume to tell ANYBODY else about THEIR "agreements"--especially when you've never seen much less read them.

If you can show me ANY(you can't!)contract that I've signed with BOFA for ANYTHING then you just might have some semblance of a reasoned and rational argument(you don't!).

Real-World Lesson #1: Get legitimate DOCUMENTATION to support your illiterate shyster-apologist term papers!

You boast that you "know a little about how this works." PRECIOUS little, obviously, so don't display so conspicuously your deliberately self-inflicted illiteracy. The simple fact of the matter is: IT isn't the BANK's money--IT's the DEPOSITING CUSTOMERS' money!

Banks just exploit that money by, amongst other things, investing it or re-selling it to other customers as "loans" for "prices"(interest).

Real-World Lesson #2: Get your basic facts straight before drafting your shyster-apologist term papers!

Even at worst any so-called "overdraft"(particularly an unintentional one)is NOT "stealing"--it's considered by the bank to be an "unsecured loan" against future funds. And there's absolutely NOTHING "illegal"(let alone immoral or unethical)about it so long as it's duly PAID by customer deposit funds.

Real-World Lesson #3: Get your factual TERMS right before drafting your shyster-apologist term papers!

Over-drafting a bank balance by $1.75 for a Starbucks coffee isn't "stealing." Once the predatory and thieving bank charges that minute overdraft a $32 "fee"--THAT's "stealing!"

That's when the bank FORCES its poorer customers not only to "live" but to unduly PAY "beyond(their)means." So you see, little toddler, it's about ETHICAL, FAIR AND GOOD-FAITH BUSINESS PRACTICES. It's about PROPORTIONATE(not exorbitant, extortionate)penalties.

Besides, by your own illogical and irrational thesis: if it's the bank's money then you should feel no "pity" for the bank since it's the bank's "fault" that it doesn't protect its own money by programming an effective automated system that REJECTED DEBT OVERDRAFTS that exceeded available funds in customer accounts! So put the "responsibility" where it most basically belongs.

So being over-populated by spoiled, whining, crybaby BRATS with absolutely no sense at all--"WHATEVER"--of ethics and fairness: is THAT "what this country is really coming to?"

GROW UP, little girl! If YOU "want to be taken seriously" then get your basic facts straight, document those facts, master some sense of ETHICAL argument, then you might have some slim chance of demonstrating some small semblance of an "education."

You might "manage simple addition and subtraction" but so long as you think and act like some childish PUNK KID then YOU'LL BE THE ONE pumping gas or cashiering at McDonald's--no matter how many worthless university degrees you might earn!

These postings have gotten way out of control and so far off target. So let me add one more comment to the stew.

First of all Joe, you are not a very bright individual. It is obvious that you use intimidation to attempt to control those around you but in the end you are the one being controlled. The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. You may want to ponder your actions if you don't like the re-actions you are getting.

And a note to Nicole, I absolutely understand your point and it is a valid one but in the future you may want to spew less venom, even at those that are obviously personality challenged. Don't be like Joe.

You know what? This is sad..."NOBODY runs around carrying a pocket calculator "keeping track of(their)transactions" and posted debits to the last little cent--nor should ANYBODY be "expected" to."

Umm... I do! I have been banking sice I was sixteen (I am nineteen now) by myself with checks, and a debit card and all. I don't bank with BoA, but I do with Wells Fargo (already looked them up, don't bother suggesting it!) and I have never NEVER had even one penny in od fees. No I am not rich, as a matter of fact I too live pay check to pay check so that I may pay for my college education (something I suggest those who don't know how to balance a checkbook consider, and soon). I also read my agreements. Guess what Joseph, you say you didn't contract to pay those fees and the bank is stealing your money? yes you did contract (I am studing Business with a emphasis in Finance - I know a little about how this works - so don't try to discredit me because of my age) with the bank, AND IF YOU WEREN'T STEALING THEIR MONEY BY OVERDRAWING YOU ACCOUNT -THEY WOULDN'T CHARGE YOU! And yes you are stealing when you take more money that what is yours. It may not feel the same, but it is.
Now, I understand that some people make a few mistakes. But a few mistakes is maybe one or two OD's a year not ten or twelve! That's living beyond your means.

And for those who complain about "not having enough to pay for thier mistakes" Go to college, if you've been there once go back. Get a better job. Demand a raise. Hell just get any job, I think McDonald's is hiring! I don't pity anyone who can't, as an adult, manage a checkbook. I understand the job market is rough right now, so I know it's not always your fault if you don't have a good job. But that doesn't give anyone the right to spend the banks money, just because you don't have as much as you would like right now.

Go ahead call me a shyster, or an apologist. Whatever, I don't care. I have comfort in knowing that because of your lack of ability to manage your finances you will be pumping gas for me someday. Idiots. Is this what this country is really coming to?

And, if you want to be taken seriously, don't bother discrediting me for my age. I think we all know I am appearntly better educated than you since I can manage simple addition and subtraction and appearantly you cannot.

Joseph Jr.

My admiration knows no bounds for your patience and restraint in the face of total ignorance on the part of the great brainwashed (sheeple) out there. The sheeple are really going to be in denial if they ever get their hands on the out of print branch of the Chicago federal reserve bank's manuel intitled,"Modern Money Mechanics, in which they plainly and imphaticly state that federal reserve notes are nothing but worthless pieces of scrip because they are backed by nothing of value!!! If you will go look on the internet for Debt Elimination, not reduction or negotiation but total elimination,you will be amazed to find out,you Joseph will find out because of your open mindedness, the sheeple will be in denial as usual,when we sign a promissary note the bank can and does monetize that NOTE-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT up to NINE TIMES the amount of the promissary NOTE! There is NO LOAN whatsoever,whatever you are buying is paid for out of the money from the promissary note and then they turn around and say, we loaned you this money now pay us back!!!! Yor signature on the promissary note is what pays for everything,what a scam,swindle and ripoff!

If you really want to find out the scam of scams go to cafrman.com and click on your state.

Keep trying to educate the sheeple because we were sheeple to at one time Joseph. By the way, I love your way with words. God bless.

Joe i agree with you. EXcept one thing its not just BOA its all banks. They are all crooked and would probably steal from the homeless.I would advise to just "stuff your money under you mattress" as one person said. Stupid!!! Just dont bank with anyone and cash your checks at a conveinent store ( even if the owner is iraqi).Id trust my money in a terrorist hands before i would any bank. I have banked with lots of banks and have had problems with all of them. They do pray on poor folk. And im sure the people that are rebultleing are people that can sh** money.

Joe i agree with you. EXcept one thing its not just BOA its all banks. They are all crooked and would probably steal from the homeless.I would advise to just "stuff your money under you mattress" as one person said. Stupid!!! Just dont bank with anyone and cash your checks at a conveinent store ( even if the owner is iraqi).Id trust my money in a terrorist hands before i would any bank. I have banked with lots of banks and have had problems with all of them. They do pray on poor folk. And im sure the people that are rebultleing are people that can sh** money.

"They're" in business to make money in any manner they see fit, even if it means charging you fee's upon fee's for holding back a deposit knowing it will indeed cover anything going through your account at the same d**n time! So let this "person" alone i fully agree with this individual!! This person has a very real and valid complaint!! YOU GO HUN, THE BANKS AREN'T OUT THERE TO BE YOUR FRIEND NOR, DO THEY WANT TO BE!! THEY ARE ONLY OUT AFTER NUMERO UNO!! THEM **CKIN SELFS!!! My advice to you is round everything up to the neartest dollar and forget it's there!! keeps you safe and them pissed!! hahahahaha thanks for listening and i really don't give a s**t bout anybody else's comments!!

Hi everyone,

I have read many reports on here about BOA & WF.

Most of you use a debit card and that is where the issue is coming from.

First I use a credit union.

1. Is it too much to ask that you bank keeps an up-to-date balance? I think not. My bank will "hold" the money till the item clears the bank. My debit card will not approve if there is no money to cover that charge.

2. Should you be able to bank by the phone or the inter-net? Hell yes we are in 2005 not 1805. BOA is a large bank and should be able to upgrade there system. After all my bank has 3 offices and has an state of the art system.

If I was you I would close that account and find a better bank, try a credit union you may find you like it much more, after all once you join you own part of that bank.

Travis

The only solution I have is to switch banks, I would suggest the Bank of Serta since they have a location in every bedroom. This is TRULY the only way to avoid ALL bank fees.

Joseph Jr. is right about one thing. Bank of America is run by a bunch of devious, thieving, lying, no good corporate bandits. They will nickle and dime to death, and even cheat and steal from, their customers! Now that the corporate behemoth known as Bank of America N.A. Inc. has swallowed up yet another large regional bank (Fleet Bank), there are now a whole new crop of suckers in New England and Middle Atlantic States for Bank of America to swindle and cheat!

FORMER FLEET CUSTOMERS: WATCH OUT FOR BANK OF AMERICA AS THEY ARE A BUNCH OF SNAKES WHO WILL ROB YOU BLIND!!!

I have not wasted my time reading all the insults and crap posted shortly after Stephanie's response. I am merely responding in agreement to Stephanie and adding my own experience with this subject.

Overdraft Privilege programs have been created by several financial software companies and are or have been marketed to banks and credit unions across America. They target lower income (or even moderate income)customers who have fee free or low fee accounts. Although the overdrafts could be considered short term loans similar to that of payday loan centers, they don't fall under any interest regulation laws with the Federal Reserve because customers pay fees rather than high interest.

However, the Federal Reserve is investigating this and although it is relatively hard to find, a search of the Federal Reserve Website will reveal investigations as early as the beginning of 2003 or earlier.

My advice to anyone who's fallen into this trap would be a written formal letter to your bank (Send it certified if necessary or have it signed for) requesting that they remove "Overdraft Privilege" from your account, and in the event funds are not available, return the item or refuse the debit. Then write the Federal Reserve and include a detailed accounting of the fees you've paid and the circumstances surrounding what you feel is the wrongdoing by your bank. Persistence is key with this type of issue because the more attention it gets the more liable banks become and the chances of getting these practices stopped increase dramatically.

I have not wasted my time reading all the insults and crap posted shortly after Stephanie's response. I am merely responding in agreement to Stephanie and adding my own experience with this subject.

Overdraft Privilege programs have been created by several financial software companies and are or have been marketed to banks and credit unions across America. They target lower income (or even moderate income)customers who have fee free or low fee accounts. Although the overdrafts could be considered short term loans similar to that of payday loan centers, they don't fall under any interest regulation laws with the Federal Reserve because customers pay fees rather than high interest.

However, the Federal Reserve is investigating this and although it is relatively hard to find, a search of the Federal Reserve Website will reveal investigations as early as the beginning of 2003 or earlier.

My advice to anyone who's fallen into this trap would be a written formal letter to your bank (Send it certified if necessary or have it signed for) requesting that they remove "Overdraft Privilege" from your account, and in the event funds are not available, return the item or refuse the debit. Then write the Federal Reserve and include a detailed accounting of the fees you've paid and the circumstances surrounding what you feel is the wrongdoing by your bank. Persistence is key with this type of issue because the more attention it gets the more liable banks become and the chances of getting these practices stopped increase dramatically.

I have not wasted my time reading all the insults and crap posted shortly after Stephanie's response. I am merely responding in agreement to Stephanie and adding my own experience with this subject.

Overdraft Privilege programs have been created by several financial software companies and are or have been marketed to banks and credit unions across America. They target lower income (or even moderate income)customers who have fee free or low fee accounts. Although the overdrafts could be considered short term loans similar to that of payday loan centers, they don't fall under any interest regulation laws with the Federal Reserve because customers pay fees rather than high interest.

However, the Federal Reserve is investigating this and although it is relatively hard to find, a search of the Federal Reserve Website will reveal investigations as early as the beginning of 2003 or earlier.

My advice to anyone who's fallen into this trap would be a written formal letter to your bank (Send it certified if necessary or have it signed for) requesting that they remove "Overdraft Privilege" from your account, and in the event funds are not available, return the item or refuse the debit. Then write the Federal Reserve and include a detailed accounting of the fees you've paid and the circumstances surrounding what you feel is the wrongdoing by your bank. Persistence is key with this type of issue because the more attention it gets the more liable banks become and the chances of getting these practices stopped increase dramatically.

I have not wasted my time reading all the insults and crap posted shortly after Stephanie's response. I am merely responding in agreement to Stephanie and adding my own experience with this subject.

Overdraft Privilege programs have been created by several financial software companies and are or have been marketed to banks and credit unions across America. They target lower income (or even moderate income)customers who have fee free or low fee accounts. Although the overdrafts could be considered short term loans similar to that of payday loan centers, they don't fall under any interest regulation laws with the Federal Reserve because customers pay fees rather than high interest.

However, the Federal Reserve is investigating this and although it is relatively hard to find, a search of the Federal Reserve Website will reveal investigations as early as the beginning of 2003 or earlier.

My advice to anyone who's fallen into this trap would be a written formal letter to your bank (Send it certified if necessary or have it signed for) requesting that they remove "Overdraft Privilege" from your account, and in the event funds are not available, return the item or refuse the debit. Then write the Federal Reserve and include a detailed accounting of the fees you've paid and the circumstances surrounding what you feel is the wrongdoing by your bank. Persistence is key with this type of issue because the more attention it gets the more liable banks become and the chances of getting these practices stopped increase dramatically.

Ukiah, you ROCK! Though I know your post will cause one of Joe's crack INDUCED responses as most sane people's explanation has in the past, your last paragraph was worth the price of admission alone!

Priceless!

Well, Ukulele, it's little wonder you're not paying exorbitant overdraft fees if we're to take it for granted you're not in fact fabricating your funny money claim of $300/hour-plus expenses "consultation fee!" Lucky you, MoneyBags!

Thankfully I may very well be the "lone exception" to the conformist choral group of shyster-apologists chiming in here so harpingly like lame automatons throughout this "thread."

But chalk NOTHING up to your "elementary" LOGIC "skills" though: you dig the spiked monetary mantrap and then fault the innocent consumers who miscalculate and plunge to their deep misfortune. You see, MoneyBags, if you possess the "sense" of fairness and responsibility NOT to dig your mantraps(or charge your outrageous, predatory, punitive and thieving fees)there would indeed be no "situation in the first place" and those selfsame fees would indeed "become zero at that point" because they'd be NONEXISTENT.

But only a shyster-apologist SWINDLER would fault the prey they prey upon for getting entrapped and being so swindled. Irrelevant? Only to the IRRESPONSIBLE! Only to the likes of those who LEECH off foreclosed home mortgages!

Who cares? Clearly you don't. And your smart-alecky rebuttal only goes to prove the point of your own complacent indifference and unconcern for the plight of those less fortunate than yourself. Doubtless all your fellow shyster-apologists must be duly impressed. Pity the poor pent-up puppy forced to sit at your sadistic feet.

Just listen up, Ukulele: don't be so presumptuous as to think that even those lacking in the most "elementary(of)math skills" would ever be so GULLIBLE, silly or stupid as to even THINK ABOUT getting SUCKERED into consulting you about ANYTHING! "In your case," no doubt, whatever you "consult" about isn't worth your slimy city's costliest wad of MONOPOLY MONEY.

As for "hope" it sometimes rests in the strangest of....tall places.

Joseph asks: "So what are the REST of you petty- but like-minded shyster-apologists doing in life that's even the least bit creative or constructive"

Well, I can't speak for the rest of us involved in this great conspiracy. But I can tell you what I'm sure we are NOT doing. We are NOT paying exorbitant overdraft fees. Chalk one up to elementary math skills I guess, but it seems to work for everyone else here in this thread. You seem to be the lone exception.

You see, you are complaining about the size of the fee, when in fact, that is irrelevant. Could be 25 cents, could be $50, could be $1K. Who cares? If you have the sense to keep yourself out of the situation in the first place, it really doesn't matter now, does it? The fee becomes zero at that point.

Whoops.....sorry, my black helicopter has arrived. Gotta go take advantage of some widows and orphans today. Hell, tomorrow I may even kick a puppy! Hope things improve for you out there in the People's Republic of Berkley. If you're ever in the city, look us up. Our standard consultation fee is $300/hour plus expenses, and in your case I'd rather not take a check.

I have been with BOA ever since I moved to Florida one year ago. I have struggled to generate any type of savings since my move and fall into the "low account balance" category. I have had $100's of dollars taken out of my account by BOA in this last year. Few were my fault, most were the result of BOA's system of the greater amounts going through first.

I, along with Joseph and everyone else who has complained about these unfair overdrafts, understand that if we keep an accurate check register that this would not be an issue. With that said BOA still has a responsibility to its customers to manage their account in our (the customers) best interests. And save it if you fall into the "they are a corporation and they are just trying to make money" category. BOA is a bank and their job is to hold your money. We pay fees for this service and expect some customer service in return for those fees.

And to the people who say "move to another bank or a credit union" you are right. But there is no denying that BOA is the most convienent bank to use here and that is why I have not yet switched.

I am not asking for a personal accountant, just some common sense. Although there have been many examples already I will go over my latest complaint.

I was away for the weekend and used my card for 8 transactions, ranging from $1 to $105. I had a balance of $500 at this point so there was more than enough money to cover all charges. They were all pending when I was at work on Monday, so BOA had advanced notice these charges were coming. On Monday night my landlord deposited a rent check that was for $775. I was supposed to deposit some money to cover the difference but for personal reasons that I am not about to go into here I was not able to.
Now today, on wed, I come into work to 9 overdraft charges because the first one that went through ($775) sent my account over.

Now I understand I will / should be rightfully charged the $33 for going over with the rent check. But the fact that I am being charged more than $200 in fees is unfair, unethical and probably unlawful. The bank should have a responsibility to its customers and their best interests, and clearly in this situation they are looking out for their own interests.

Please, to everyone who disagrees with me, do not respond with the above mentioned attitudes. If you disagree then you disagree, there is nothing you will say to me which will make myself, Joseph, or anyone else involved in this discussion, change our minds. Its like trying to tell a hard core leftist to vote for Bush, there is no middle ground or compromise.

Also, I realize there are probably many grammatical and spelling errors that appear in this post, so save your time I don't want to read a SHAUN FROM FT LAUDERDALE, NEEDS HELP DOING ADDITION AND SPELLING. That is not the spirit or point of this forum. I am rushing because I am at work and do not have to time to spell check or even re-read what I wrote.

If anyone knows of or is interested in bringing a class action against BOA in Florida please let me know, I am very interested and know many other people who are as well but lack the knowledge or resources to do so. There are other practices (like if you need an overdraft and have less than $100 left on your credit line, they take everything you have. Then they hit you with the $5 finance charge for the overdraft. All of that is fine until they hit you with a $35 over-credit line fee)

Okay, I've decided that I am not going to take sides in this issue. I will, however, provide what I hope is useful information. These items refer specifically to Bank of America California, and generally applies to Bank of America in "Model" states (i.e. all states with a Bank of America presence, other than CA and the former Fleet footprint).

POSTING ORDER
Credits (i.e deposits) are posted FIRST (ALWAYS!!!), from largest to smallest. Debits are then posted, from largest to smallest (the reason being is that you would be AWFULLY ticked off if the bank paid the $1.19 for that soda you really didn't need, but then bounced your rent check for $900.00).

NSF FOR BANK FEES
Bank of America does not charge you an NSF for another bank fee that OD's your account (example, if you only have $2.00 in your account at the end of the month and your monthly service charge for $5.95 posts to the account ODing it $3.95, you will NOT receive an NSF for that $5.95 item).

NSF JUST FOR HAVING A NEGATIVE BALANCE
Bank of America (unlike some other banks) will NOT charge you fees every single day that your account remains in the red. You will only receive an NSF for processing additional items that will/would have OD'd the account more.

NSF REVERSALS FOR CLAIM ITEMS
If you file a claim for an item that misposted/fraudulently posted to your account, Bank of America will reverse all NSF's that were the result of that item (including any s****.> HOLDS ON CASHIER CHECKS (OFFICIAL ITEMS)
As mentioned by a previous poster, the reason for a hold on a large cashier check is due to the fact that a stop payment can be placed on them, so (contrary to popular belief) they are not "same as cash".

NSF FOR UCF (UNCLEARED FUNDS) HOLDS
If you receive an NSF due to an UCF hold (which simply means that Bank of America has not received confirmation that a check has cleared the other bank's account) and you made the deposit at the ATM, Bank of America will be more than happy to reverse that NSF. The reason behind this is that you would have had no way to know at the time that you made that deposit that the bank would place a hold on the funds, therefore the bank will reverse those fees.

There are many more things that I can add to the above information, but I figure that this will help clear up many of the misconceptions that I noticed being posted. I sincerely hope that by knowing the above things you will be able to "stick it to the Man" by no longer being forced to cough up fees for unnecessary errors.

BTW, if anybody is interested: all of this information (as well as other useful tidbits) is easily found in the "FACTS" booklet that the kind folks at Bank of America hand out with every new account. If yours has somehow become misplaced or worn out, the friendly associates in the banking centers will be more than happy to hand you a new one. If it is too difficult or inconvenient to go into the bank, the friendly folks at telephone customer service will happily have one mailed to any address of your choosing. If you have any difficulty with certain terms or definitions, any bank employee will be kind enough to assist you with them.

I hope this helps. Everybody have a nice day and please try to get along. ^_^

First off, Zip-Dip Zia!

If you hadn't advocated so much the automated system's INACCURATE, DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT "version" of low-balance customer accounts you might not suffer your CORN(Y)-ucoPIA of Shyster-Apologist CRAPOLA!

However your utter lack of FAIR AND GOOD FAITH business practices most definitely hasn't helped YOU!

Better in the end to be an innocent "idiot" than a shyster-apologist GUTTER RAT lacking absolutely ANY redeeming quality whatever!

first off, Joe.

if you hadn't depended so much on the automated system's version of your available balance, you might not have problems. however, your lack of basic math is not helping you.

OF COURSE you "get customers like(me)every day" because you FLEECE and SWINDLE customers like me(and others)every day, every week, every month, all year, EVERY year, year after bloody year!!!! DUH!!!! Doesn't your shyster-apologist conscience EVER disturb you in the least bit about that????

Indeed "it's really easy," apologist Amy, you get customer account deposits(because your captive account customers have no place else to put them), you RIP OFF the GREATEST POSSIBLE PORTION of those deposits that you can possibly GET OFF SCOT-FREE SPONGING!!!!

As to the bank's "responsibility" what more can the bank do? Generate after-the-fact notices that you're not only "overdrawn" but that you've also been EXCESSIVELY "overdrawn" because the BENEFICENT bank has already GOUGED your account with EXORBITANT AND EXTORTIONATE fees? Report account balances at the ATMs or online "ETC." that are DELIBERATELY AND DECEPTIVELY INACCURATE, FALSE AND FRAUDULENT--designed solely to COMPOUND both the errors AND the FEES even further solely for PROFIT's(not humanitarianism's--know the MEANING of the word?)sake???? Hardly.

Who do you honestly think you're kidding here with this FIDDLE-FADDLE, apologist Amy?

READ, RE-READ AND COMPREHEND OR REMEDIAL READ!!!!

What more the bank can quite RESPONSIBLY do is quite SIMPLY to design and program its automated system to CONSISTENTLY REPORT ACCURATE AND TRUE ACCOUNT BALANCE INFORMATION AND QUITE SIMPLY REJECT WITHOUT PENALTY ANY AND ALL ATTEMPTED ELECTRONIC DEBITS EXCEEDING SAID ACCOUNT BALANCE!!!! Credit card companies do. Banks can do it. DUH!!!!

"What else do(I)want the bank to do? Call(me)? Come to(my)house....?" Not unless you(or they)want to deliberately(and stupidly)expose yourselves to great bodily injury or perhaps even a considerably(and prematurely)shortened lifespan!!!! Get my drift there, apologist Amy?

Poor BABY! That AWFUL "amount of time tellers spend doing this(handling and processing NSF items)takes away from TRUE bank needs!!!!" GOD FORBID you POOR DEARS should EVER OVER-exert those poor OVER-worked wrists while sitting there on those POOR FLUNKY BUTTS while LEECHING OFF those customers whose low-balance accounts you BLEED SO DRY SO REGULARLY!!!! Oh yeah, apologist Amy, you need yet MORE QUALITY TIME to address "TRUE bank needs"--like MILKING those fixed-income Social Security accounts AS WELL!!!!

SO SORRY to SO INCONVENIENCE some bank FLUNKY in the performance of their public-SERVICE sector duties!!!!

"Please think about it, how DUMB does that(make YOU!)sound????"

Well, apologist Amy, we've got YOUR THIEVING AND PREDATORY number--but at least you outright ADMIT that "fees are so high" and DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED "to make(the bank)a profit!!!!"--though without GIVING A HANG about helping customers correct "mistakes."

Who knows what your utterly irrelevant clap-trap about "ACH items" and "NSF fees" is about, but WHO CARES????

READ, RE-READ AND COMPREHEND OR REMEDIAL READ!!!!

How, when, where or WHY I(or ANY-body else!)bank(s)isn't the issue and NONE OF YOUR FRICKIN' BUSINESS!!!! So don't presume to answer ANY-thing for me or ANY-one else! Got that, apologist Amy? Good!

Because "ALL BANKS CHARGE(THOSE)FEES" and so FLEECH AND RIP OFF low-balance customer accounts is not just utterly irrelevant but also utterly WITHOUT MERIT AS EITHER A LEGITIMATE OR EVEN RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OR ALIBI TO THE PROFITEERING THEFT YOU'RE SO LAMELY ATTEMPTING TO GLOSS OVER AND APOLOGIZE FOR HERE!!!! That white won't wash--not now, not ever!

"So please save YOUR excuses!" You not only "SOUND really dumb!" What's worse, you ARE "really dumb!" What's even worse, you're so really DELIBERATELY dumb!!!!

And what's more, save your INFANTILE questions about what I(or ANY-one else)might do to "calculate" their account balance versus consulting the deliberately deceptive and fraudulent automated system! Going straight to the bank and withdrawing all your remaining cash down to the last teller-reported cent quite promptly and quite simply dispenses with THAT puerile proposition!

You're SO WAY OUT OF YOUR DEPTH here, little Ms. Apologist-Amy-and-Aspiring-Pseudo-Intellectual!

So I most respectfully suggest that you take your pom-poms and go cheerlead so DUMBLY for your SHYSTER ESTABLISHMENT at some other PLAYGROUND for DUMB LITTLE ADOLESCENT GIRLS!!!!

RAH! RAH!

I am not an employee of BofA but actually of another bank. I get customers like you everyday. Its really easy. You get money, you spend money- just make sure what you are spending is within the amount that you recieved.

As for the banks responsibilty- what more can the bank do? They will generate a letter to you to let you know that you are now overdrawn, you balance is also available for you to check at the atm machines, online, etc.

What else do you want the bank to do? Call you? Come to your house and ask you to make a deposit- please think about it, how dumb does that sound. I have been in a branch before and the office are handling many reports deciding to pay and return items again NSF on an account- the amount of time tellers spend doing this take away from true bank needs.

Thats why the fees are so high- partly yeah the bank is going to make a profit, secondly because they hope that if you get fee after fee you would learn from your mistake.

Even if the bank were to receive and ACH item which is what I believe you are talking about they would still charge you an NSF fee it would just be classified as a return fee. Then these companies would probably report you to telechex, chexsystems, etc. Then your 32.00 fee would be the least of your worries.

Like the other person wrote if you have been charged year after year after year why are you still with the bank? Let me answer that for you- because ALL BANKS CHARGE THESE FEES!

Balancing your checkbook is not hard- I have 2 jobs, an 8 year old and I am a cheerleading coach yet I still find time to manage my account- so please save your excuses you sound really dumb!

I do have one question- what do you do for yourself to know your balance if you are so busy you can't caculate your own additions and subtractions? Besides check the automated system?

You like trite little lists, Mister Moneybags, then try out THIS one for size:

1)"Refresh" YOURSELF in "basic" REMEDIAL READING.

2)PEDDLE your false-and-deceptive business practices(generally)and more specifically(especially)your illegitimate(if not illegal), partial, one-sided and blatantly unfair financial documents(and "instruments")to the GULLIBLE and stop retreating so redundantly(and predictably)behind your fine-print contract terms and condtions. Whether they're signed before, after or NEVER they're STILL without fairness or good faith!

3)"Learn to balance" your own IM-balanced(and stick-in-the-mud)mentality by refraining from presuming to preach so pompously to others about counting their pennies or balancing either their account or checkbook! It's not the prerogative of ANY pompous A** to presume! Get my drift there, humdrum Jim?

4)Yeah, be an "adult" and "accept responsibility" for your own false-and-deceptive-business-practices-absent-any-fairness-or-good-faith-whatever SHYSTERISM!

5)PLEASE don't PRESUME so POMPOUSLY that ANY-body here would EVER stoop to such debased, degrading, despicable and outright DEGENERATE depths as to EVER "be one of(YOUR)clients!!!!" Get my drift there, humdrum Jim?

"The fact IS"(that's right!), it's OUR money--NOT the bank's to IR-responsibly pilfer and plunder with the dubious "courtesy service" of its EXCESSIVE AND EXTRAVAGANT AND ACCOUNT-GOUGING FEES!

"Paying" for "mistakes" with what's ETHICAL, FAIR AND JUST is one matter, humdrum Jim--"paying" for "mistakes" with what's EXORBITANT AND EXTORTIONATE(whether dubiously "legal" or not!)is quite another matter altogether!

Perhaps your blatant inability to make such fine ethical distinctions gives your own parents good cause(if not pause)to mourn(if not repent)THEIR great "mistake," but speaking of bottom-line "fault," don't presume to pass on to posterity here your "more than obvious" and uttermost LACK OF ANYTHING humanly helpful or benenficial EXCEPT perhaps the LIVING LESSON OF A PROFOUNDLY BARREN, EMPTY, INEFFECTUAL AND USELESS EXISTENCE!!!! Get my drift there, humdrum Jim?

Don't be a HYPOCRITE then: Have a LOUSY day!

YAWN! Bryan must somehow mean BORING because your prosy PRESUMPTUOUSNESS is pretty prosaic!

First you admit the shyster bank swindled your own grandmother and then you proceed(quite ineptly, illogically and irrationally)to gloss over, make whiny excuses, whitewash and APOLOGIZE for the entire SHYSTER system!

Truly TEDIOUS, indeed, but it puts us right back to repeating so redundantly what the ILLITERATE amongst us just can't, don't or won't GET! So once again either READ, RE-READ AND COMPREHEND OR REMEDIAL READ--or else just zip it and take a powder!

1)You "believe that when you open an account that is something you pretty much agree to when you sign on the dotted line."

People under duress CONSENT(not necessarily accept or "agree")to sign business forms or papers at shyster establishments every day as a "pretty much" compulsory condition of DOING business! But that scarcely makes the documents signed either legitimate or even legal.

Otherwise new employees wouldn't sign utterly IL-legal termination-without-cause agreements on a daily basis. What other choice do they have? Either they sign or they don't work.

Likewise account customers either sign or they don't bank--but purely because they're not only powerless to change or control the conditions of agreement but even to set those terms in the first place! Is this some esoteric or mysterious revelation you haven't yet acquainted yourself with?

Banks then may be a "necessary evil"(mightily debatable)but simply because consumers "sign" doesn't automatically or necessarily mean they must tolerate, endure or otherwise SHEEPISHLY PUT UP with the "evil" that banks typically do without any sort of compunction at all whatever! So get REAL if not RATIONAL on that particular point!

2)Should you "zero(your)balance at $100 to help(you)....keep from giving them money(you)can ill afford to lose?"

Blah, Blah, Blah!!! If YOU can indeed "afford" that luxury then that's all well and good for YOU and YOU ALONE! Countless other account holders simply cannot "afford" that luxury so don't presume to preach so POMPOUSLY to them! NO-body's soliciting your "slightly" less than sage advice here! So kindly speak for YOURSELF--ALONE!

3)The MONOTONOUS "mattress" remark is as INSIPID as it is POINTLESS so why make it in the first place? Think of something "slightly" more creative that's not so TOTALLY devoid of any interest(much less any remote merit)whatever!

4)Open my "own bank and making up(my)own banking rules?"

You're BORING, Bryan, as well as BABYISH there! NO-body's ever even insinuated much less suggested such a preposterous thing here so why attempt so adolescently to confuse the issue with THAT in the first place?

5)"Name calling and treating everyone that doesn't agree with(me)like they are idiots is another."

Yeah right, Bryan, like others here haven't CALLED me names! Who cares? What's the difference! TRIVIALITIES don't matter! And I don't give a FLYING HANG whether you, they or ANYBODY ELSE "agree(s)" with me AT ALL!

That's beside the point--which IS, quite simply: SHYSTERISM IS WRONG AND CAN AND MUST BE CONFRONTED AND RESISTED IF NOT ALTERED! GET IT?

If you choose to accept and put up with it as part of your own personal predicament then that's just fine and dandy for YOU! Otherwise sell your lame song-and-dance to the GULLIBLE! That white won't ever wash here! READ AND COMPREHEND!

RE-READ, in fact, the entire post. Those addressed as "IDIOTS" are solely those who ACT AND WRITE LIKE IDIOTS(and deservedly so!)by deliberately(and conveniently)IGNORING THE ISSUE AT HAND while impotently attempting(like you)to make ME the issue--making smugly condescending remarks or PRESUMING so POMPOUSLY to give outright STUPID(albeit UNSOLICITED)and BOGUS advice which, again, NO-body CARES OR GIVES A FLYING HANG ABOUT!!!!

Get my drift there, boring Bryan?

6)I "need to grow up?"(That's rich coming from you, boring Bryan!).

More equally insipid, irrelevant and indifferent presumption! First, you don't presume to tell me what I "need" to do under any circumstance whatever. Second, preach your puerile sermon to YOURSELF because that particular rebuke suits you best!

Mature, adult "grown-ups" stick to the issue rather than attempt so CHILDISHLY to confuse it! So I give back precisely(and in equal measure)as good as I get. And if you can't take it then get LOST! Nobody invited or solicited your cockamamie commentary!

I posted solely for people's aid and edification--not to solicit the BOGUS advice of the INSIPIDLY PRESUMPTUOUS! Get my drift there, boring Bryan?

7)You're absolutely right in this instance: it "doesn't matter" WHO's account is at issue! If it doesn't matter then why(oh WHY!)even waste time, effort and space bringing up what "DOESN'T MATTER" in the FIRST PLACE???? What doesn't matter doesn't "need" to be debated!

8)"If you or they don't like what the bank is doing then change banks."

You're SUPREMELY BORING, Bryan! Don't presume so adolescently to tell ANY-body how, when, where, why or WITH WHOM to bank! That has nothing at all whatever to do with you--or the issue!

9)"Of course it probably won't matter which bank you choose because you will still have the same problem."

You're oh-SO SUPREMELY BORING, Bryan. This post is age-old by now and the selfsame "problem," as you most PRESUMPTUOUSLY put it(again!), has been LONG-SINCE RESOLVED AGES AGO!!!!

GROW UP yourself if you ever expect to RATIONALLY debate with mature, grown-up adults--with some semblance of intelligence at least rather than out-and-out IGNORANCE!!!! Get my drift there, boring Bryan?

10)What the "wife and(you)did" WHEN-ever is equally trite and irrelevant so why mention it at all in the FIRST PLACE????

11)"....solutions are not what(I'm)about."

Look, boring Bryan, you haven't the least CLUE what I'm about! You haven't the least CLUE what the issue's about! You likely haven't any CLUE whatever(PERIOD!)what even YOU'RE about! But that's not my trouble--it's yours!

So simply stop PRESUMING so impotently to pose supposed "solutions" NO-body needs, nor wants, nor solicited, nor GIVES A FLYING HANG ABOUT! Frankly, you're blatantly too inept or incompetent to pose "solutions" to problems you're so clue-LESS about! Get my drift there, boring Bryan?

12)I've solicited NO-body to "get behind(me)and change all the bank policies."

READ, RE-READ AND COMPREHEND OR REMEDIAL READ!!!!

SO "Sorry," boring Bryan, but only a PERFECT "fool"(as you must rest satisfied and take comfort in BEING!)would simply GIVE UP and refuse even to CHALLENGE, CONFRONT OR DEFY THE SHYSTER SYSTEM!!!!

And speaking of rallying the rebellious "ranks" how radically different the European continent might be mapped today had the insurgent resistance movement taken in the face of n**i invasion your oh-so adult, grown-up and mature but SHEEPISHLY APATHETIC(AND PATHETIC)ATTITUDE!!!!

Grow up, boring Bryan? GET A CLUE, boring Bryan!

I used to have an account with BOA.. I could stop right there for those that have the intelligence to read between the lines. I dont like BoA because they worked with a local used car dealer and shysted my grandmother into buying a car she didn't want and didnt authorize.

But eventually the laywers took care of them. I dont like them or their practices so I closed my account and opened a Washington Mutual account. I still think their fees are rediculously high but I also believe that when you open an account that is something you pretty much agree to when you sign on the dotted line.

Is 30 bucks a rip off for a simple mistake? Sure it is!!! Is the system designed to stick it to you given the chance? Sure it is!!! Should I zero my balance at $100 to help me (when I make mistakes) keep from giving them money I can ill afford to lose? Sure I should and its a lot cheaper in the long run if I do.

Banks are a necessary evil and the only ways around them are your mattress or starting your own bank and making up your own banking rules. You might find some difficulty there also due to federal rules that banks are mandated to follow. Either way being ticked off about is one thing. Name calling and treating everyone that doesnt agree with you like they are idiots is another. Joseph you need to grow up!

It doesnt matter if its your wifes account or your neighbors. If you or they dont like what the bank is doing then change banks. Of course it probably wont matter which bank you choose because you will stillhave the same problem. Of course you could do what the wife and I did back when we were in college. Hehehe. we had so little money that the 20 bucks they charged back then literally meant we didnt eat as much that month.

We finally closed the checking account.. Opened a savings account and twice a month we went and got money orders for all the bills. In the long run it was cheaper to do that then risk a 20 dollar mistake that could have paid for ALOT of money orders. But I apologise because solutions are not what your about.

You want everybody to get behind you and change all the bank policies. Sorry even though it would be a worthwhile endeavor only a fool would do it with you in the ranks.

I was reading this complaint as well as the following rebuttal's and had to skip to this comment after reading, and I had to read it twice to be sure I was reading it correctly, that most people don't balance there accounts down to the penny. Maybe not where you come from they don't. Maybe those with more money than they could ever spend don't. The rest of the RESPONSIBLE people in the world do. At least those that I am aware of do, and I work in finance.

The fact is, it's your money, therefore your responsability to balance your account TO THE PENNY. Any bank I have ever had an account with extends the courtesy service, and discloses it to you when you open your account in wrighting, of honoring transactions within reason if you account balance is to low. Had you read this when you opened your account, it would have been on at least one of the forms you signed, you would have also found that you could have this service stopped at any time from the very first day.
I think the bottom line here is that you want someone else to pay for your mistakes, and after 3 or 4 years in a row of increasingly higher insuficient funds fee's, It's more than obvious that the only party at fault here is you.
1. Refresh yourself in basic math.
2. Read what you sign before you sign it.
3. Learn how to balance a check book.
4. Be an adult and accept responsability for your mistakes.
5. Please don't ever be one of my clients.

Have a nice day.

Like DUH????!!!!

ANYbody aspiring to possess the power to get consumer victims "committed" is suffering self-important delusions of grandeur! GET IT?

So if I have some screws loose, HON, you've lost all yours altogether!

That's why it must take you just milliseconds for you to drool your drivel here! Wish then you'd WASTE your(and our)time GETTING AN EDUCATION(again!)first so that your worthless BLABBERING might make some scant sense!

"As somebody who really believes consumers haven't been "wronged by BofA" he's obviously ALREADY "COMMITTED" since he's just as obviously suffering so many delirious SELF-DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR AND SELF-IMPORTANCE if not out-and-out DESP0TISM AND DICTATORSHIP."

Huh?

You have more than a few screws loose, HON!

It must take you hours upon hours to come up with the nonsense you throw around in here. Wish you would spend a few more hours and make your ramblings actually make some sense.

Ah, Beverly in Anchorage is a discerning woman after my own heart who can not only read and comprehend but also cut clean through the crapola and get to the true heart of the matter by posing the vital bottom-line question concerning profiteering fees that are not simply "substantial" but outright EXCESSIVE--not to mention severely ABUSIVE: IS IT "REASONABLE?" Obviously not! Not by any RATIONAL test of REASONABLENESS!

Way to go, Beverly! And congratulations on your insightful and evidently EXCEPTIONAL ability to finally and at long last GET IT!!!!

Beverly's a far cry of course from the Texan LOONY TUNE who sounds like he's ALREADY CONFINED to a very small room where he's corresponding from!

Get real? Profiteering banks are in business to make money, yes--criminally GOUGE consumers for money, NO!

Consumer complaints against banks have "no merit" just because they're scarcely "investigated?" That's scarcely surprising since in the "real world" BIASED banking regulatory agencies are scarcely IMPARTIAL since they typically represent(and protect)more vested BANKING interests than consumer interests. No esoteric or secret mystery there!

That's why in the "real world" profiteering, consumer-gouging banks get BETTER than just "investigated"--they more correctly, effectively and productively GET SUED BY CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS!

And what banks are "allowed to get" from consumers isn't automatically or necessarily "LEGALLY allowed" at all since in the "real world" impotent(and unenforced)banking regulations FAIL TO EFFECTIVELY CHECK OR CONTROL BANKING EXCESSES which equally impotent LAWS leave UN-checked and UN-controlled!

So something being "perfectly legal" scarcely makes it either correct, fair, just or right. So retreating behind the tired irrational rationalization of "legality" is more akin once more to retreating beneath the rotten, maggot-eaten boards of TECHNICALITY!

In an IDEAL world it would indeed be nice to completely abolish and replace banks with something more CONSUMER-SERVICE(as opposed to SELF-SERVICE)oriented but that's another matter entirely!

HA! Like this LOON will "ever realize anything!" Obviously he's ALREADY living in his own DISTURBED LITTLE DREAMWORLD!

And from reading his "IN(S)ANE" post he comes off as somebody who's ALREADY CONFINED to a very small room constrained more by his own MENTAL DIS-ability than writing CAP-ability!

Clearly he's most likely a cracked banker(or regulator)confined for attempting so LAMELY to DIS-claim the very "problem" he's not just contributed to creating but that he and he "alone" is also SOLELY "responsible" for--and now CULPABLE of APOLOGIZING for!

Do we expect him to "understand" THAT? Do we expect a worm at best(and a maggot at worst)with the mind of a gnat to grasp the concepts of fair-and-truthful-and-good-faith business practices????

If he needs an answer to that question he should stop reading immediately and resolve not just to stop wasting his time and ours but also the SPACE he's so amply WASTING--both here and in LIFE.

As somebody who really believes consumers haven't been "wronged by BofA" he's obviously ALREADY "COMMITTED" since he's just as obviously suffering so many delirious SELF-DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR AND SELF-IMPORTANCE if not out-and-out DESP0TISM AND DICTATORSHIP.

Fortunately for the rest of us he's just another LOON who just as fortunately "comes off" as being ALREADY confined and constrained. THAT truly IS our "ultimate consumer protection."

Now if he'd just heed his own mightily sage advice, seek psychological HELP(and perhaps create a separate site at which to post his DEMENTED DRIVEL!)on how to escape back to his UN-real world and "BOTHER NO ONE" further!

Get the drift there, David? Good Boy!

This is to all the people complaining about BofA. Get real! Banks like any other for-profit business are in business to make money. Unlike most other for-profit businesses, however, they are regulated. If they had violated any of the establishes governmental regulations, you can be sure that they would be investigated.

Obviously your accusations have no merit since they have not caused them to be investigated. You are people who have no idea how to act in the world of real people. Reading your additions to this site leads me to believe that you all need to seek help from very good psychologists (whom you'd probably also create a site to complain about) on how to handle the real world. Your financial problems are your own.

If you don't want a bank to "rip you off" don't deal with ANY banks, because all of them will get from you whatever they are legally allowed to get. Live in your own little world, buy nothing, and bother no one. Since you have chosen to live in the real world, realize that there are things that will happen to you, that, while you may feel are wrong, are perfectly legal. Ha! Like you'll ever realize anything. From reading your inane posts, you all come off as people who should be confined to a very small room where the constraints you're in would never allow you the ability to write with a pencil, let alone type on a keyboard. You created the problem you're know complaining about and you alone are responsible. Do I expect you to understand this? Do I expect a snail to apprecialte the meaning behind a peice of Picasso's artwork? If you need an answer to that question, please stop reading now as I don't want to waste anyone's time and be accused of not looking after someone's well being. If I could have you, or anyone else, who really believe you've been wronged by BofA committed, I would. That would be the ultimate consumer protection.

I work at a bank, not BOA, but our policies are similar. As frustrating as it is to have to wait, I just thoght you might like to know some reasons. We see counterfiet bank checks more and more lately. I'm in no way implying yours is, I'm just giving you one reason for the hold. We recently had a customer with a $4500.00 loss because his bank check he recieved was fake. One other reason is because it is just what it is, a check. If you lost it, you would expect it to be replaced and not be out of all that $$. It is possible to place a stop payment on a bank check. Bank checks do certify the person has the funds, but until it is sent to the bank and paid, nothing is definate. You might want to ask your bank how much they are willing to make available right away though. Our bank policy on large checks is $5000.00. I know not all banks are the same and I am in no way saying you shouldn't be upset, I just thought you might want to know more info.

We have not done a check by phone since we opened our account with BOA, which is now going on two years. We just don't like giving a creditor the information readily available in their data base. However, we are in the process of selling a mobile home and wanted to make sure all payments were completely current on this loan so decided to do a check by phone for the first time. On August 16, 2004, I gave a creditor the permission to make the last payment on a loan to them, they let me know there was a $7.00 charge to do a check by phone, no big deal. We had the money to do it. On the 16th of August, BOA processed our check by phone for the amount of the check only. 4 days later came the amount for the check by phone service charge. If I had been close in my checking account, which many people are these days, this could have led to a 33.00 overdraft charge, we were just lucky enough that we had more than enough money to cover the amount. No one knows why it was held up. The creditor processed that 7.00 charge the same day as the check by phone amount. This I do believe is an example that Joseph is referring to. I am also tired of BOA processing checks by amount and not when actually coming in. But that is something that will take a law to change, most larger banks process checks this way. Now here comes the scary part. Next week we will receive a certified check for over 30K. There will be a 5 day hold put on this check unless I can prove it is a local bank. I "have" to prove this. Not BOA. This is a load of crap. If I have a certified check, which the last I heard was equal to cash, I should have access to these funds at least 24 hours later, but NO!!!!!!!!!!! I do agree that some policies need to be changed at BOA. I do keep our checkbook balanced to the penny so that we do not have these horrible charges hit and if they do, it is due to a mistake on BOA's part. They will reverse them immediately but why should I be watching them? I have checked out other banks in our immediate area and they are all the same, so we have decided for the time being just to stay with BOA until we move to a different area.

I think I understand where Joseph is coming from. Although his posts are a bit wordy, I think essentially what he's saying is that the fees some bankers are charged can be substantial...

If, in balancing my checkbook, I find that I spent 4 dollars over my balance, is it right for BofA to rearrange the order of my debits so that I am charged 75 dollars in overdraft fees? This could be something as simple as forgetting the ATM fee.

I don't think the issue of this post is whether or not the account is overdraft, or how, but if the banks should be allowed to manipulate the rules of engagement to make outrageous profits.

Of course, if I had never overdrafted, I wouldn't have incurred any fees, but is 10X my overdraft a reasonable charge?? I think that's what we're really asking. Sure, it's easy to say "take your money out of the bank", but, really, in 2004 it's nearly impossible to conduct day to day business without an account!!

In closing, I'll just say that I DO bank with a Credit Union, and I must say I feel fortunate that I do.

Do get an education, hon. Have you never ever heard of use of the "editorial We" in commentary writing, hon????

So YOU "keep up with(my)own story," hon, by reading(and re-reading)the entire post before fatiguing everybody to tears with your not-so-"intelligent" commentary concerning it. That will first necessitate, hon, some obligatory REMEDIAL READING instruction.

You're not the first illiterate, nor will you likely be the last illiterate, that I've had to clarify my use of that editorial device for, hon. But even your EXTREME illiteracy cannot change the simplest fact of life: it's STILL not my personal bank account at question at all, hon.

As to your "offer" of truth, so-called: nobody asked for it, hon; nobody needs it, hon; and nobody sure as HECK "want"(s)it, hon!!!

As to your perception of "truth," hon, it's patently distorted, fallacious, false, faulty and so eminently--to say nothing of so tediously--IRRELEVANT.

So speak for yer-self, "blog"-brain, my "finances" are just fine, hon.

And speaking of an "ignorant individual who lacks the intelligence" to read and comprehend--"Get help, hon..." by getting some REMEDIAL READING instruction..."but get it elsewhere." This site is solely for people of LEGITIMATE LITERACY.

And as for "wasting space" you doubtless do that on a DAILY BASIS whenever and wherever you go to WHINE, hon.

Fact is, hon, since relating those circumstances dating from 2000 I've added absolutely NOTHING whatever to the initial post EXCEPT to roundly REBUT the "crying" commentary of "intelligent"-ABSENT shyster apologists like you as I'll CONTINUE to do as need be at MY discretion, not yours. Got that, hon? Good.

CJ, CJ, CJ....

Nice try but your earnest arithmetical gymnastics exercise isn't even worth addressing since you've mightily MISSED the real "moral of the story" altogether which over and over and time and time AGAIN has absolutely nothing whatever to do with imputing low-account customer "fault" for "screw(-ing)up."

And if the account holder dealt with a balance approximating "several thousand dollars" it's ABSURDLY AND RIDICULOUSLY FAR-FETCHED that an overdraft punishment would ever be inflicted by the bank in the first place.

So if you aspire to ever become a pseudo-sage on a par with idiot savant, Desoto Deb, then I respectfully suggest that you read and RE-read the entire post to accurately ascertain and understand the real "moral of the story." Or else, as I repeat ad nauseam to all who've likewise missed it, learn to READ AND COMPREHEND. Failing that, REMEDIAL READING instruction remains as your remedy of last resort.

Last but not least:

Schnooky Layne-the-Loudmouthed-Loon sounds in DESPERATE need of some NOOKY--"Period."

Indeed, there's no "conspiracy" and the bank isn't out to "get" just you or me. Quite the contrary, it's blatantly and patently out to profiteer and racketeer to "get" EVERYBODY it can conceivably defraud, fleece, rip off and outright ROB!!!!

As for "b***h"-ing and "spewing" you're the only one here FOAMING AT THE MOUTH so RABIDLY with so much out-and-out DRIVEL!

I'd get those RABIES BOOSTER SHOTS if I were you!

Do get an education, hon. Have you never ever heard of use of the "editorial We" in commentary writing, hon????

So YOU "keep up with(my)own story," hon, by reading(and re-reading)the entire post before fatiguing everybody to tears with your not-so-"intelligent" commentary concerning it. That will first necessitate, hon, some obligatory REMEDIAL READING instruction.

You're not the first illiterate, nor will you likely be the last illiterate, that I've had to clarify my use of that editorial device for, hon. But even your EXTREME illiteracy cannot change the simplest fact of life: it's STILL not my personal bank account at question at all, hon.

As to your "offer" of truth, so-called: nobody asked for it, hon; nobody needs it, hon; and nobody sure as HECK "want"(s)it, hon!!!

As to your perception of "truth," hon, it's patently distorted, fallacious, false, faulty and so eminently--to say nothing of so tediously--IRRELEVANT.

So speak for yer-self, "blog"-brain, my "finances" are just fine, hon.

And speaking of an "ignorant individual who lacks the intelligence" to read and comprehend--"Get help, hon..." by getting some REMEDIAL READING instruction..."but get it elsewhere." This site is solely for people of LEGITIMATE LITERACY.

And as for "wasting space" you doubtless do that on a DAILY BASIS whenever and wherever you go to WHINE, hon.

Fact is, hon, since relating those circumstances dating from 2000 I've added absolutely NOTHING whatever to the initial post EXCEPT to roundly REBUT the "crying" commentary of "intelligent"-ABSENT shyster apologists like you as I'll CONTINUE to do as need be at MY discretion, not yours. Got that, hon? Good.

CJ, CJ, CJ....

Nice try but your earnest arithmetical gymnastics exercise isn't even worth addressing since you've mightily MISSED the real "moral of the story" altogether which over and over and time and time AGAIN has absolutely nothing whatever to do with imputing low-account customer "fault" for "screw(-ing)up."

And if the account holder dealt with a balance approximating "several thousand dollars" it's ABSURDLY AND RIDICULOUSLY FAR-FETCHED that an overdraft punishment would ever be inflicted by the bank in the first place.

So if you aspire to ever become a pseudo-sage on a par with idiot savant, Desoto Deb, then I respectfully suggest that you read and RE-read the entire post to accurately ascertain and understand the real "moral of the story." Or else, as I repeat ad nauseam to all who've likewise missed it, learn to READ AND COMPREHEND. Failing that, REMEDIAL READING instruction remains as your remedy of last resort.

Last but not least:

Schnooky Layne-the-Loudmouthed-Loon sounds in DESPERATE need of some NOOKY--"Period."

Indeed, there's no "conspiracy" and the bank isn't out to "get" just you or me. Quite the contrary, it's blatantly and patently out to profiteer and racketeer to "get" EVERYBODY it can conceivably defraud, fleece, rip off and outright ROB!!!!

As for "b***h"-ing and "spewing" you're the only one here FOAMING AT THE MOUTH so RABIDLY with so much out-and-out DRIVEL!

I'd get those RABIES BOOSTER SHOTS if I were you!

Do get an education, hon. Have you never ever heard of use of the "editorial We" in commentary writing, hon????

So YOU "keep up with(my)own story," hon, by reading(and re-reading)the entire post before fatiguing everybody to tears with your not-so-"intelligent" commentary concerning it. That will first necessitate, hon, some obligatory REMEDIAL READING instruction.

You're not the first illiterate, nor will you likely be the last illiterate, that I've had to clarify my use of that editorial device for, hon. But even your EXTREME illiteracy cannot change the simplest fact of life: it's STILL not my personal bank account at question at all, hon.

As to your "offer" of truth, so-called: nobody asked for it, hon; nobody needs it, hon; and nobody sure as HECK "want"(s)it, hon!!!

As to your perception of "truth," hon, it's patently distorted, fallacious, false, faulty and so eminently--to say nothing of so tediously--IRRELEVANT.

So speak for yer-self, "blog"-brain, my "finances" are just fine, hon.

And speaking of an "ignorant individual who lacks the intelligence" to read and comprehend--"Get help, hon..." by getting some REMEDIAL READING instruction..."but get it elsewhere." This site is solely for people of LEGITIMATE LITERACY.

And as for "wasting space" you doubtless do that on a DAILY BASIS whenever and wherever you go to WHINE, hon.

Fact is, hon, since relating those circumstances dating from 2000 I've added absolutely NOTHING whatever to the initial post EXCEPT to roundly REBUT the "crying" commentary of "intelligent"-ABSENT shyster apologists like you as I'll CONTINUE to do as need be at MY discretion, not yours. Got that, hon? Good.

CJ, CJ, CJ....

Nice try but your earnest arithmetical gymnastics exercise isn't even worth addressing since you've mightily MISSED the real "moral of the story" altogether which over and over and time and time AGAIN has absolutely nothing whatever to do with imputing low-account customer "fault" for "screw(-ing)up."

And if the account holder dealt with a balance approximating "several thousand dollars" it's ABSURDLY AND RIDICULOUSLY FAR-FETCHED that an overdraft punishment would ever be inflicted by the bank in the first place.

So if you aspire to ever become a pseudo-sage on a par with idiot savant, Desoto Deb, then I respectfully suggest that you read and RE-read the entire post to accurately ascertain and understand the real "moral of the story." Or else, as I repeat ad nauseam to all who've likewise missed it, learn to READ AND COMPREHEND. Failing that, REMEDIAL READING instruction remains as your remedy of last resort.

Last but not least:

Schnooky Layne-the-Loudmouthed-Loon sounds in DESPERATE need of some NOOKY--"Period."

Indeed, there's no "conspiracy" and the bank isn't out to "get" just you or me. Quite the contrary, it's blatantly and patently out to profiteer and racketeer to "get" EVERYBODY it can conceivably defraud, fleece, rip off and outright ROB!!!!

As for "b***h"-ing and "spewing" you're the only one here FOAMING AT THE MOUTH so RABIDLY with so much out-and-out DRIVEL!

I'd get those RABIES BOOSTER SHOTS if I were you!

Do get an education, hon. Have you never ever heard of use of the "editorial We" in commentary writing, hon????

So YOU "keep up with(my)own story," hon, by reading(and re-reading)the entire post before fatiguing everybody to tears with your not-so-"intelligent" commentary concerning it. That will first necessitate, hon, some obligatory REMEDIAL READING instruction.

You're not the first illiterate, nor will you likely be the last illiterate, that I've had to clarify my use of that editorial device for, hon. But even your EXTREME illiteracy cannot change the simplest fact of life: it's STILL not my personal bank account at question at all, hon.

As to your "offer" of truth, so-called: nobody asked for it, hon; nobody needs it, hon; and nobody sure as HECK "want"(s)it, hon!!!

As to your perception of "truth," hon, it's patently distorted, fallacious, false, faulty and so eminently--to say nothing of so tediously--IRRELEVANT.

So speak for yer-self, "blog"-brain, my "finances" are just fine, hon.

And speaking of an "ignorant individual who lacks the intelligence" to read and comprehend--"Get help, hon..." by getting some REMEDIAL READING instruction..."but get it elsewhere." This site is solely for people of LEGITIMATE LITERACY.

And as for "wasting space" you doubtless do that on a DAILY BASIS whenever and wherever you go to WHINE, hon.

Fact is, hon, since relating those circumstances dating from 2000 I've added absolutely NOTHING whatever to the initial post EXCEPT to roundly REBUT the "crying" commentary of "intelligent"-ABSENT shyster apologists like you as I'll CONTINUE to do as need be at MY discretion, not yours. Got that, hon? Good.

CJ, CJ, CJ....

Nice try but your earnest arithmetical gymnastics exercise isn't even worth addressing since you've mightily MISSED the real "moral of the story" altogether which over and over and time and time AGAIN has absolutely nothing whatever to do with imputing low-account customer "fault" for "screw(-ing)up."

And if the account holder dealt with a balance approximating "several thousand dollars" it's ABSURDLY AND RIDICULOUSLY FAR-FETCHED that an overdraft punishment would ever be inflicted by the bank in the first place.

So if you aspire to ever become a pseudo-sage on a par with idiot savant, Desoto Deb, then I respectfully suggest that you read and RE-read the entire post to accurately ascertain and understand the real "moral of the story." Or else, as I repeat ad nauseam to all who've likewise missed it, learn to READ AND COMPREHEND. Failing that, REMEDIAL READING instruction remains as your remedy of last resort.

Last but not least:

Schnooky Layne-the-Loudmouthed-Loon sounds in DESPERATE need of some NOOKY--"Period."

Indeed, there's no "conspiracy" and the bank isn't out to "get" just you or me. Quite the contrary, it's blatantly and patently out to profiteer and racketeer to "get" EVERYBODY it can conceivably defraud, fleece, rip off and outright ROB!!!!

As for "b***h"-ing and "spewing" you're the only one here FOAMING AT THE MOUTH so RABIDLY with so much out-and-out DRIVEL!

I'd get those RABIES BOOSTER SHOTS if I were you!

You're a paranoid loon. This is not a conspiracy. Nobody is out to get YOU. You are simply not keeping track your own financial affairs. Period.

If you spent half the time balancing your checkbook as you do spewing your nonsense...nah, then you wouldn't have anything to b***h about.

Okay, suppose John Doe has a BofA account. He goes online to check his balance, and BofA is showing a balance of $1,213.12. It shows the deposit of his paycheck from last week, but there are a few checks still outstanding. He deduct the amount of those checks that he knows are outstanding from the BofA online statement, and the online statement then balances with the balance shown in his checkbook 748.63. Now that his checkbook is balanced, he can go shopping for some things he needs. He makes the following transactions, in the following order:

Beginning balance: 748.63
Gas station 15.62; new balance 733.01
Groceries 348.97; new balance 384.04
Shoes 62.41; new balance 321.63
Electric bill 119.42; new balance 202.21
Cell phone bill 146.47; new balance 55.74
Movies 45.72; new balance 10.02

At this point HE STOPS making transactions, because he knows he only has $10.02 left in his account until his next paycheck is deposited in two days.

B of A posts my transactions from largest to smallest:

Beginning Balance: 1,213.12 (remember, there are some checks that hadn't cleared)
Groceries 348.97; new balance 864.15
*Check for car payment 325.00; new balance 539.15
Cell phone bill 146.47; new balance 392.68
Electric bill 119.42; new balance 273.26
Goodwill 74.27; new balance 198.99
Salvation Army 65.22; new balance 133.77
Shoes 62.41; new balance 71.36
Movies 45.72; new balance 25.64
Gas Station 15.62; new balance 10.02

Hmmm what a concept.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY: If you balance your checkbook, and deduct checks and debits from your account as you make them, and don't write checks/make debits on money you know full well isn't really there, it's highly unlikely you'll be socked with overdraft fees, no matter when or in what order BofA posts the transactions.

And by the way, I'm NOT saying anyone deserves those fees, just that it's not the bank's fault if you screw up. $32 is pretty high if you're only short a few cents; conversely, it's petty cash if you just bounced a check for several thousand dollars. I suspect part of the reason those fees are so high is because a reasonably prudent person, upon having to pay one or two of them, would start paying MUCH closer attention to his/her checkbook so they wouldn't have to pay more.

And, by the way, some of the other posts that I've seen here are right in that not everything posts right away. I think it sometimes depends on when the merchant actually submits it.

"We are a moderate-income couple living on a fixed monthly salary whose financial condition this fraudulent bank's insidious automated system is deviously designed to not only RIP OFF but COMPLETELY IMPOVERISH AND PAUPERIZE."

That is a direct quote from your very first post, Joseph. Keep up with your own story. First you say "we" and "our" when referring to the bank account...and now you claim that it's not your bank account at all.

Regardless, all I did was offer you the truth about how it works. You don't want that, though. You obviously just enjoy complaining.

There are blogs for those who just enjoy complaining and insulting people. This site is for people who would like to submit legitimate complaints about real fraud. Your case is not of fraud, but one of an ignorant individual who lacks the intelligence to handle his own finances. Get help, hon..but get it elsewhere. You are wasting space here that could be used by someone who has really been ripped off. Your "plight" started in 2000. Any intelligent person would have learned how to balance a bank account in the four years that you've spent crying about it.

To "get through" to anybody you must first DEMONSTRATE the feat of "good common sense" at which(as a shyster apologist way out of your depth here)you're doomed to FAIL.

GOD FORBID that you were ever, EVER "like" me but let THIS "sink in": apart from representing the height of adolescent presumption your "explanation," so-called, makes NOTHING but "perfect" NON-sense!

Banks are businesses in the business of making money, blah, blah, BLAH!!! Like, DUH? Like, so WHAT? Like, why state the blatantly obvious?

A bank business may not be a "volunteer organization" but that's no ALIBI or excuse for it to operate WITHOUT GOOD FAITH ETHICS like a RACKETEER organization and "make their money from you" when they "SCREW" you over!!!!

So let THESE few simple facts "sink in":

Bank customers don't "incur" NSF fees--banks INFLICT those fees on customers as unjust and unjustifiable PENALTIES for NON-existent and NON-transacted "business."

It would be "good"(even "better")business practice for banks to actually ASSIST(rather than inhibit)customers to "keep good track of(their)own money" with an automated system that wasn't so calculatingly deceptive, inaccurate and outright USELESS in its obsessively PROFITEERING operation.

Bank payment of a debit overdraft is no more a "loan" than the overdraft itself is a bad instrument(or "bounced check")--no more, for that matter, than an NSF fee is an interest charge on your imaginary "loan." And NOBODY goes "to jail" for debiting insignificant overdrafts any more than for passing insignificant "bad" checks! So who are you seriously trying to kid with your invalid, irrelevant analogies but yourself?

The bank may not be "there to babysit" people but it's not "there" to EXPLOIT AND PREY UPON people by PURLOINING AND PLUNDERING their low-balance accounts by inflicting their exorbitant, extortionate and DIS-proportionate penalty fees either!

But GEESH, "that is the way that ALL" MOBSTERS "work," so then ORGANIZED CRIME AND CRIMINAL FRAUD MUST be just and legitimate--at least by your warped logic, Desoto Deb. After all, their "livelihood" is to FLEECE AND SWINDLE low-balance account customers out of THEIRS!

So cut this CROCK OF CONDESCENDING CRAPOLA, Desoto Deb!

A VOLUNTARY bank(that according to you is not a "volunteer organization")payment of a debit overdraft is NOT a "service" of ANY sort under ANY bank's "terms and conditions"--it's just another profiteering RACKET!

An automated system programed to simply REJECT debit overdrafts(just as banks RETURN bad checks)would constitute some semblance of a "service."

All beside the point though. As I've been forced to repeat so redundantly to so many ILLITERATES before you this post has absolutely nothing whatever to do with bank customer "inattentiveness," "indiscretions" or "irresponsibility"(except the CORPORATE variety)so save your LAME UN-solicited "suggestions" for yourself.

If I need a babysitter then you most certainly need a nanny or nursemaid(or mother-in-law)to aid your REMEDIAL READING.

This post has absolutely nothing whatever to do with my personal bank account and the actual account holder at issue(with her "record")has already been a member of her "picky" university employer CREDIT UNION which she could very well re-join at any time--at HER discretion, not yours. Got that? Good.

So nobody asked nor needs you to supply "help" which you're so patently INCAPABLE of supplying in the first place. We already "understand" all too well how the shyster establishment system really "works."

As for "spewing" any "venom" at you, well, I'm blushingly flattered that you'd confuse me with your own reptilian friends and relations but I sorely regret that I'm capable of just spitting(and online just figuratively at that).

So I'm afraid you'll have to solicit amongst your own closest circle of TOADS to accommodate THAT sort of sordid masochistic KINK! I'm just not into it. So sorry!

Joseph,

No one else with good common sense has been able to get through to you, so I don't know why, but I feel I must try.

I was once like you. I am not real good with numbers and so have recieved more than my fair share of NSF fees. It used to really tick me off also. I mean, geesh..overspend by $1 and get charged $20 for NSF..how unfair is that? I complained to my mother-in-law that it seemed like fraud (she works at a bank). And then she gave me an explanation that makes perfect sense. Probably not to you, Joseph, but to anyone who is willing to let it sink in.

Banks are businesses. They are not a volunteer organization. They are in the business of making money. They make their money from you when you screw up. The only ways that they earn money is through interest on loans, service fees, and NSF fees. Now, if you don't incur NSF fees, you win and they don't get paid. However, if you don't keep good track of your own money, and the bank must "loan" you enough to cover your debit because you don't have the appropriate funds in your account, then you must pay for that loan. It beats going to jail for in effect bouncing a check. That is exactly what you are doing when you use a debit card without sufficient funds.

The bank is not there to babysit you and say "Now, Joseph, you know you don't have money in your account to cover this debit." They just cover it, and then you pay for that service. The loss of the money hurts, but you can't call the bank a fraud because of your own inattentiveness. That is the way that all banks work. That is their livelihood.

If you cannot take responsiblility for keeping track of your funds, and you can't stand the thought of paying the bank to cover your indescretions, I have two suggestions for you.
You could, as someone said earlier, take your money out of the bank. Keep your cash at home, and when you run out, you will know..and you can't possibly overdraw. Or you might try to find a credit union that will do business with you. They are not profit-run businesses like banks are, so the fees are not as high. Of course, they are a bit pickier about who they do business with, and with your record......well, at least it's worth a try. Good luck, Joseph. I'm sure you will come back spewing your venom toward me now, but I am just trying to help you understand how it works, the same as someone else did for me.

Ah well, yet another shyster-apologist(but "more stable personality")bites the dust--but this time FOAMING AT THE MOUTH!--pointedly confronted with the obviously over-potent self-realization that an infantile TIRADE simply cannot convincingly masquerade as reasoned and rational "opinion."

Neither here nor there though. Just consider this latest true "reality" low-balance account scenario(speaking of "simple math"):

First day, the account holder withdraws $20 and the bank ATM receipt shows a balance of $38.60.

The very next day(after no other transactions have transpired), the selfsame account holder withdraws another $20 and the bank ATM receipt from another location across town MIRACULOUSLY shows a balance of $28.35(which SHOULD'VE showed $18.60 or $20 deducted from the previous day's reported balance of $38.60).

Now get THIS, dear hypocritical "nutcase" name-callers:

A telephone call to the bank's automated "customer service" line the VERY SAME DAY(again after no other transactions have transpired)reported by voice recording a balance of $16.60!!!!

Now of the not one but THREE different balances reported which one IS IT????

If the thieving bank's automated system is THAT contrived, calculatingly inaccurate and deceptive then it's outright injust and WRONG(to say nothing of USELESS)--no matter whether the account holder got misled and suckered(she didn't)into thinking she had more available funds than actually existed or even made the outlandish "mistake" of incorrectly "balancing the checkbook."

For THAT, dear hypocritical "nutcase" name-callers, NO low-balance account customer "DESERVES" to suffer the arbitrarily and capriciously inflicted "tough-love" PUNISHMENT of a paternalistic, patriarchal bank PREDATOR under the guise of its SCANDALOUS, EXORBITANT, EXTORTIONATE AND DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTY FEES!!!!

You're a very bitter nasty man. My opinion is just that, MY OPINION!!! I have the right to post it as well as you have the right to repeatedly whine about everyone who disagrees with you. I have a life, I, just like many, enjoy this website. But, seeing as you're such a miserable person, I'll move on to people who actually have an issue to post. (You know, instead of name calling and whining, people with valid issues and a more stable personality!!!!))
So long nutcase!!

Now THAT's mildly amusing: shyster-apologists have taken to portraying this thieving bank as a paternalistic, patriarchal "tough-love" establishment though PREDATORY would be far more apt!

But no, I made the rampant problem of the thieving bank's PROFITEERING and the onerous PREDICAMENT it puts its low-balance account customers in "everyone's business"--NOT the personal reasons why one particular account holder retains long-term ties to the shyster entity. Those reasons are no BUSYBODY'S BUSINESS, including YOURS. Got THAT? Good.

So once more: that predicament has absolutely nothing whatever to do with "balancing a checkbook" or imputing "fault" for making "mistakes." All utterly irrelevant.

This post has already effectively(and redundantly)addressed those TEDIOUS, TIRESOME and utterly TRITE rebuttals elsewhere. Remedial read.

We all "understand" only too well how this thieving bank MIS-"handles" its low-balance account customers' redundantly PLUNDERED funds. There's no esoteric mystery there and that's never been the point of this post either. Remedial read.

What IS the point, Ms. Latest-Shyster-Apologist, is that this predatory bank's unchecked ABILITY to operate(and so fleece and rip off its low-balance account customers on a daily basis)by its own ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ONE-SIDED AND PARTIAL "rules and regulations" should NOT exist in the FIRST FRICKIN' PLACE! And rampant predatory MAL-practices amongst OTHER banking establishments IS NO PLAUSIBLE ALIBI OR EXCUSE FOR IT EITHER! That white won't wash here!

Balancing a checkbook may not be "rocket science," all right, but NOR IS REMEDIAL READING.

So indeed: DO the "simple math" and STOP GLOSSING OVER the inherent IRREDUCIBLE PROBLEM(and injustice)of this thieving bank's PREDATORY MAL-PRACTICES or else acquire a REMEDIAL READING book to accompany your arithmetic text.

And then you might just GET A LIFE as well!

Why would you post something on the internet for thousands to read and respond to, and have that reply? You made it everyones business when you posted this!!! As for the account holder, whoever that is (it must be someone you know who can't balance a checkbook), the same reply- it it not the banks fault when a person makes the same mistake year after year.

Every bank is the same, not that I think it's a good thing, but, they all post items largest to smallest. Balancing a checkbook is not rocket science, it is simple math. Being with a bank for years, it would be wise to understand the way they handle your money. Banks give account rules and regulations to every customer that explains all transactions and posting frequency. Maybe the people it doesn't affect are they people who actually take the time to understand the way the bank works.

Re: Zia "Cut the.."

Zia: Call it whatever you like...BOA is Guilty of stealing. And if stealing from low income familes is what you would call tough love, then you are a heatless B and just as guilty.

Re: Zia "Cut the.."

Zia: Call it whatever you like...BOA is Guilty of stealing. And if stealing from low income familes is what you would call tough love, then you are a heatless B and just as guilty.

Firstly, nobody meant to tell you anything, and we'll no longer here repeat ad nauseam rebuttals to cornball commentary already contained throughout this post composed by illiterates.

So the brief reply is: read and re-read the entire post if you're truly interested to learn why the selfsame "issue" or "problem" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with dependence or "reliance" on the automated system. And then if you STILL don't "get it" then read, re-read or REMEDIAL READ until you do.

It's a repetitive "problem" simply because those most adversely affected subsist on fixed(repetitive)monthly low-account incomes. If you happen to live the good life with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth(and a bank account bursting over at the seams with a fat balance)then that's all well and good for you and you have our heartfelt congratulations.

But this particular account's difficulties have absolutely nothing whatever to do with me personally(the "our" is a figurative reference to my access to the issue)and the strictly practical reasons why the actual account holder retains ties with the shyster bank are employment-related and therefore personal.

And frankly, my dear, NONE OF YOUR FRICKIN' BUSINESS! Do you "get" THAT?

Change sides, what for?

first off, if it makes you happy, I don't stand for injustice, but the Bank is doing what it has to do to keep in business.

Each time an account holder makes a purchase beyond their balance capabilities, the bank pays to keep them from check/debit card penalties. So there for, the bank is taking the money it payed, back. Also, the IFF's are what you can call, tough love.

Do you think banks want to charge these IFF'S if they don't have to? I don't think so, they'd rather keep a customer than lose one and that's why B of A has online banking so that customers who enroll, can keep an extra eye on their transactions. Its like an aide to book keeping.

You quoted fees from the past 3 years as well as this year from the same issue, you mean to tell me you didn't get it the first time? If this has been the case since 2000, shouldn't you know the way it works and not rely so much on the automated system? I understand your frustration at the high fees, but, 3 years and you still have the same problem????

You quoted fees from the past 3 years as well as this year from the same issue, you mean to tell me you didn't get it the first time? If this has been the case since 2000, shouldn't you know the way it works and not rely so much on the automated system? I understand your frustration at the high fees, but, 3 years and you still have the same problem????

You quoted fees from the past 3 years as well as this year from the same issue, you mean to tell me you didn't get it the first time? If this has been the case since 2000, shouldn't you know the way it works and not rely so much on the automated system? I understand your frustration at the high fees, but, 3 years and you still have the same problem????

You quoted fees from the past 3 years as well as this year from the same issue, you mean to tell me you didn't get it the first time? If this has been the case since 2000, shouldn't you know the way it works and not rely so much on the automated system? I understand your frustration at the high fees, but, 3 years and you still have the same problem????

Ok, to everyone who is complaining about the way Bank of America (or any other bank) posts transactions ...

Let's say that the following is a list of transactions IN THE ORDER THAT YOU ISSUED THEM:

Beginning Balance: $250.00

Transaction #1
Check
$245.00

Transaction #2
Debit Card
$10.00

Transaction #3
Debit Card
$5.75

Transaction #4
Debit Card
$10.37

Transaction #4
Check
$25.00

Remember, the order above is the actual order of transactions as you authorized or issued them. In this case, the first check would be paid, and then the other 4 transactions would cause overdraft fees.

What do you say?

I like to think I'm intelligent. SOmetimes I am hideously wrong, though. And evidenly BOA only agrees with the hideously wrong.

I have had an ongoing battle with BOA about overdrafts. Yes, I have earned some of my overdraft fees. Most, I have not.
Bank of America is a for profit organization, and therefore will do anything within the letter of the law (and sometimes outside of the law until they get caught) to make money for its stockholders and other beneficiaries.

There is a system that WILL tell you what your exact real-time balance is, not counting transactions like checks, and scheduled ACHs and whatnot. But if you live on your bank card and atm cash like I do, those transactions seldom occur. This is called real time processing. Not for profit banking entities use this, like Credit Unions. Real time processing is a beautiful thing. It also lets you rush to the bank when you overdraw to immediately deposit money. Or to run screaming desperately to the nearest teller or CSR to tell them to not accept some incoming transaction, or to hit your brother up for money or whatever.

Bank of America uses batch processing. This means that, in BOA's case, All of the transactions that have happened or have been "presented for payment" throughout the day are sitting in a big pile waiting for midnight California time for their system to sort through and post the largest debits to the smallest, and then the smallest deposits to the largest. It doesn't matter when you have actually made such purchases or payments. What matters is when they were actually "presented for payment" and on BOA's (REALLY SCREWED UP) sorting process.
They are in it for the money, and anyone defending them on the basis of "business practices" needs to be dragged out and shot. Until I banked with BOA, there was always a manager that would look at the situation (Mr manager, I'm sorry, but I think someone stole my identity, could you please reject that transaction - and any further from that company - and give me that $33 fee back so I can afford groceries this week?) and if I hadn't been hideously abusive of his generosity, I usually got the credit, and an offer of the beginner's seminar on "Checkbooks 101" or for a CSR to sit with me and make sure I understand the basics of a checking account.

Then I get to BOA. Customer service is a joke. They're only in it for the money. I'm convinced they intentionally adopted their "big debits first, small deposits first" policy to punish the low income people who have the nerve to open a "no fee" checking account. If they're not getting their money from you in interest, they'll get it in fees.

Someone said something about their policy being that way because they assume we know our balance and have a desperate need for the money. What about those of us who have a desperate need for the money that's eaten up with overdraft fees that shouldn't have happened if they were processed according to date (like our checkbooks)? Or what about those who are victims of (yes they're real) viruses who steal passwords and allow 12 year olds to wreak havoc on our lives, or those who are victims of identity theft? If we have no idea other people are messing with our stuff, how are we to know our balance? Seriously?

Bottom line: BOA is a for profit company. They will do what they can to make money, even if it means altering policies to barely follow the law and screw as many of their customers as they can. Notice that if any of you were to have say, 1,000 in your account, and your biggest transaction was $500, with 10 other transactions averaging $50(all in the same day), you'd be fine no matter what the order. If you had $500, with the 10 transactions for $50 and a $500 deposit(all in the same day), you're getting hit with up to $360 in overdrafts, but BOA would have received the same amount of money as deposited funds. But the guy with $1000 allowed them to send that money out to earn interest, so ... think about it.

I'm in the process of battling a very similar situation. I'll take it all the way to the President of the US if I have to. This needs to be fixed.

I have a print out from the bank where the monet to Ford uis taken out..leaving me in a negative bal.. OK mthen afew small stagglers come through. Ford and the small stragglers all get hit with NSF Fees. Thwen B o A takes the money back from Ford and puts it back into the account. noe the bal is in the possitive ...minus all the fees for the Forsd chechk and all the others out there needing picked up!!!!!!!

Bad bank B o A! bad business deb. This is unexplained by you. TRY AGAIN!

Brad

Brad, my compliments to you and others for finally chiming in together to get through to the shyster-apologists posting here though I fear that your efforts are tragically to little avail and wasted in vain--but never stop trying!

Of course shyster-apologists like Deb "get" your questions but they deceitfully EVADE them to CLOUD the issue. Besides, they're too callous and insensitive to empathize with the monetary plight of low-account customers. They've got THEIRS and could care LESS about YOURS.

Deb alludes to the true CRUX of the matter with this shyster-apologetic line--you're just still MISSING the shyster-apologetic mentality:

"As to those that do not keep track of their account then you DESERVE the overdrafts. If you don't record your checks written, debit card used, it is your own fault, not the BANK's fault."

Bank customers who don't correctly "balance their checkbooks" or otherwise make an accounting mistake automatically and necessarily earn, merit or otherwise "DESERVE" then to pay exorbitant and extortionate overdraft PENALTIES--even for the minutest of overdrafts! After all, it's not the BANK's "fault" that it charges customer-fleecing ripoff penalties IN THE FIRST PLACE. Or isn't it?

Why does nobody ask WHY?

WHY should bank customers be subject to such disproportionate PENALTIES by a corporate entity IN THE FIRST PLACE? Just listen to Deb--chastising you like some clucking mother hen reprimanding you and threatening your overdraft penalty like you were her naughty misbehaving little child!

WHERE does this DIVINE RIGHT or prerogative of banks to punish their naughty misbehaving little customer children come from IN THE FIRST PLACE? Don't you ever wonder, Brad? Doesn't ANYbody ever wonder?

Upon WHAT PREMISE is this DIVINE RIGHT or prerogative of banks to inflict overdraft PUNISHMENT BASED IN THE FIRST PLACE? Doesn't ANYbody ever wonder?

WHAT plausible or rational LOGIC OR REASONING can shyster-apologists argue for FLEECING AND RIPPING OFF their customer children UNDER THIS FALSE PRETEXT IN THE FIRST PLACE? BEYOND of course PROFITEERING AVARICE AND GREED????

Ah, don't the rest of us wish we could all own the bank's arbitrary and capricious title to inflict monetary penalty against anybody and everybody who ever made mistakes or otherwise transgressed against us--at WHIM--and WITHOUT even providing ANY GOOD OR SERVICE AT ALL WHATSOEVER IN RETURN for that extravagant prerogative???? Just sit back and collect the BIG BUCKS for people's mistakes....

Yes, it must truly be nice to luxuriate amongst the genteel titled nobility all right!

But don't at least some of you naughty misbehaving little customer children out there think that it's high past time that you started not only to question but outright challenge and defy the bank's pretensions to its titled nobility--as well as its corrupt, fraudulent, unscrupulous and IRRESPONSIBLE MALPRACTICES????

My previous submittal had an error.

RE: Joseph Jr "This is a question..."
Joseph/All:

SHOULD READ

RE: Gary - Hopkins, Minnesota "This is a question..."
Gary/All:

My apologies to Joseph.

Now for News.

RE: Zia - Modesto, California "Victim in Austin Texas"

Zia: To answer your question, I think I do understand why you are a proud BoA customer. That's the unfortunate thing.
and...That's not good enough for me. Not by a long shot. It only shows that you are missing the point entirely.
As redundant as you and so many others are being...You are right about one thing. If BoA customers NEVER go over their balance then he/she may never have an IFF. If that's all you have to contribute then I repeat what I said about your taking up space.

Re: James-Mesa, Arizona "Too all consumers.."
James/All: Even though I do not support BoA, I found your report simply by doing a search. It's too bad that it has to come down to a law suit for you. The litigation could end up more costly than the loss you have already incurred. I hope you do not exhaust yourself to no ends before ever get a judgment(justice) or settlement. Sad Yes but that's the truth of our system as I understand it.


Re: Deb "There is one..."
Deb/All: I don't think you understood Brad's complaint. I know you didn't understand it the way I did.
There should be some restrictions on the number of IFF's that a bank can charge. Everything is based on the dollar right..what we can afford to eat, what we can afford to do, education, etc... With so much based on the dollar, a bank should and must use reasonability and conscience when taking from it's customers. If not, then it is most definitely stealing. It is exactly the definition of stealing. Stealing has many definitions. A few of which seem to fit what BoA is doing to low income customers. They are: 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice. 2. to take away by force or unjust means 3 : to take surreptitiously or without permission.

All:
What I have learned most from this forum is that it can be difficult to get through to people that are not in the same situation.

Well I will ask someone to explain to me how the following hypothetical (and yet very real) scenario does not fit at least one of the above definitions of stealing:

Ms. Low income customer, hereinafter referred as Ms. L, opens a checking/savings account with BoA with her entire $200.

She makes the following purchases and balances her account in this order:

Check card $20 BAL_$180
check no. 1 $10 BAL_$170
check no. 2 $10 BAL_$160
check no. 3 $10 BAL_$150
check no. 4 $10 BAL_$140
check no. 5 $10 BAL_$130
check no. 6 $10 BAL_$120
check no. 7 $10 BAL_$110
electronic check $100 BAL_$10
w/draw $10 BAL_$0
electronic check $50 BAL_$0 (obviously she didn't keep good records)

Here is how BoA does Ms. L's balancing

Check card $20 BAL_$180
w/draw $10 BAL_$170
w/draw $10 BAL_$160
foreign atm $2 fee BAL_$158
check no. 1 $10 BAL_$148
electronic check $100 BAL_$48
electronic check $50 BAL_$-2
check no. 2 $10 BAL_$-12
check no. 3 $10 BAL_$-22
check no. 4 $10 BAL_$-32
check no. 5 $10 BAL_$-42
check no. 6 $10 BAL_$-52
check no. 7 $10 BAL_$-62
IFF $30 BAL_-$92
IFF $30 BAL_-$122
IFF $30 BAL_-$152
IFF $30 BAL_-$182
IFF $30 BAL_-$212
IFF $30 BAL_-$242
IFF $30 BAL_-$272
BoA then returns the following purchases
electronic check $50 BAL_$-222
check no. 2 $10 BAL_$-212
check no. 3 $10 BAL_$-202
check no. 4 $10 BAL_$-192
check no. 5 $10 BAL_$-182
check no. 6 $10 BAL_$-172
check no. 7 $10 BAL_$-162

Ms. L is a victim as are so many low income people/families every day by the unconscionable actions or THEFT of BoA and other Banks like BoA.

And Yes if Ms. L had kept better records this would not have happened. But for her human mistake she will have to go hungry.
Shame on those of you who support this *&%$!!! And if you didn't know exactly what/who you were supporting, it's ok to change sides.

Brad,
When Ford took your information as a check by phone it is the equivalent of a regular check but just sent electronically to Ford. It still needs to be processed by BOA. You did not have the funds available to pay the check. They sent this information back to Ford as "Insufficient Funds", which is why you received the additional overdraft fees.

This is not the same as Online banking which accesses your funds immediately. Ford had to wait for approval from BOA to have that check by phone to clear and it did not. BOA never really took the money away from the vendor as it did not have it until the money cleared your account, which is why Ford asked you to check to see if the funds had cleared your account.

That is why we NEVER do check by phone. We only use the Online Checking options available by BOA so that we know that what we are paying out to our vendors are paid in full at the time we are asking them to be paid.

Brad,
When Ford took your information as a check by phone it is the equivalent of a regular check but just sent electronically to Ford. It still needs to be processed by BOA. You did not have the funds available to pay the check. They sent this information back to Ford as "Insufficient Funds", which is why you received the additional overdraft fees.

This is not the same as Online banking which accesses your funds immediately. Ford had to wait for approval from BOA to have that check by phone to clear and it did not. BOA never really took the money away from the vendor as it did not have it until the money cleared your account, which is why Ford asked you to check to see if the funds had cleared your account.

That is why we NEVER do check by phone. We only use the Online Checking options available by BOA so that we know that what we are paying out to our vendors are paid in full at the time we are asking them to be paid.

Brad,
When Ford took your information as a check by phone it is the equivalent of a regular check but just sent electronically to Ford. It still needs to be processed by BOA. You did not have the funds available to pay the check. They sent this information back to Ford as "Insufficient Funds", which is why you received the additional overdraft fees.

This is not the same as Online banking which accesses your funds immediately. Ford had to wait for approval from BOA to have that check by phone to clear and it did not. BOA never really took the money away from the vendor as it did not have it until the money cleared your account, which is why Ford asked you to check to see if the funds had cleared your account.

That is why we NEVER do check by phone. We only use the Online Checking options available by BOA so that we know that what we are paying out to our vendors are paid in full at the time we are asking them to be paid.

That's all fine and dandy Deb. But why does or how can they take the money then a few days later, take it back from the merchant and rack up all the fees in the mean time? Does this work for you? Make any sence at all DEB?

First off to Victim and all the others with the overdraft fees: It is not Bank of America's responsibility to be responsible for you financial record keeping. If you do not keep an accurate log of how much you have spent you will eventually overdraw your account, I don't care how busy one is, that is not an excuse.
The problem I do have with Bank of America is this: If on a certain day you have Deposits and Checks going into the account, BOA deducts all checks first, then adds the Deposits. For some this might cause an overdraft. I think this is totally wrong, especially when it comes to automatic payroll deposits. That is something that the customer does not have control over at all. All they know is that it is to be available to them on such and such day. I think the bank rules should be changed that deposits should be put in first then checks deducted from any deposits. I understand that certain deposits might have a "hold" on them, especially those that are out of state, but still if it is a Payroll check from a reputable payroll processing company that check should go through first!!!

I still do have to every once in awhile have them reverse overdrafts because of this very problem and that is why they do so. If they would just change their rules, then there would be no need to have to reverse such overdrafts.
As to those that do not keep track of their account then you deserve the overdrafts. If you don't record your checks written, debit card used, it is your own fault, not the bank's fault.

This thread is long and complicated for me. Lots of angst and bad words - I feel for the original poster.

Nonetheless, on a speed scan of it, I picked out several consumer comments who dated their membership(?) with BOA and stated how wonderful their Debit account still works.

I was like them from 1988 until this July of 2004. You must read my report. I've never had banking issues and I have been living paycheck to paycheck since I earned a a bachelor's degree in 1987. I actually still work in that field of study!

I am proud of being a responsible consumer over the years I've had an account with BOA. They really have let me down lately, and I am in a great struggle to get out of from the bus they threw me under.

[DELETED]

[Place your comments below and be sure to include your FULL contact information so Rip-off Report can contact you.]

My wife has an account there at B o A we always have a problem with them and it's not only B o A it's all large banks. I have an account with a small Independent Bank and have many less problems. Get a load of this deal. Maybe the ex-employee of B o A can help me with this. I have never seen anything like this one.

We had money ( I thought)and a little more to pay a car payment to Ford. As we did not know and we are people whom are busy I work many hours and she does also. For very little pay I may add. But we did not know we we're neg. because the wasy postings are done and we don't or hadn't been paying much attention to our statements. We just put money in and keep OK records. A few months ago I guess it was just all catching up with us and we noticed we we're getting some returned check notices ok that hapens time to time.

They'll clear the next time around. no big deal right? well of course we were curious...well time goes on and I just had not had the time to check ..ok we had a few 33.00 hits from the bank we will recover right we still have money going end. Well to our suprise ...I send a check over the phone to Ford ...now I'm thinking the money is there. (now before you say that that is my fault I'm a big boy and I understand this ok). but the payment goes out of the account and there is not enough in the account to cover the check. the bank pays the check right.

Then a few other ckecks in the mean time for very small amounts my wife writes a few days before. they all get thrown back all these charges start payling in for the ford check and for the others. Then B o A takes the maney back from Ford and Ford starts calling and say's we're behinde Not knowing all this is going on I tell Ford they are full of it I know I paid the payment. Blaa Blaa blaa. Ford say's to check with B o A and get proof the payment has cleared.

To my suprise B o A has taking it back from Ford and Charged me for that too. In thre mean time If B O A had not sent the payment for monies not there to Ford in the first place all the other checks would have cleared. This is true. And here is what it did to us over the period of 45 days it cost us over $700.00 in NSF fees.

Any one?

Do you even understand why i'm a proud customer? First off, B of A, instead of taking from me, has provided me with excellent customer service and secondly if I want to waste space, this site isn't even yours, so shut up.

Third and finally, if you knew how to balance your check book and only spend what you have and not what the bank makes you think you have (because items haven't posted yet), then you wouldn't be a victim. Is that good enough for you?

As for Joseph, he's just utilizing the 1st ammendment and has the right to do so.

RE: Deb "I bank with Bank of America"
Deb/All: I too have been refunded overdrafts that I should not have been charged to begin with. And yes BoA has some neat online features. With its $746 billion I would hope so. With enough capitol many things are possible in this country. But please understand that everyone is not so lucky as you to have IFF's refunded immediately. More importantly try and understand that these fees should not be there to begin with.
I really feel like you are naive as to what is going on here. If you had any idea the number of folks stepped on and blood shed to build a bank like BoA, I would hope you wouldn't take up for them. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it doesn't affect others.

RE: Rhonda "This is for Victim..."
Rhonda/All: I too left bank of america (as a customer). Thanks for sharing some of the truth behind BoA's unconscionable actions. What they are doing is not right and to those who can't/won't see that...I hope ignorance is bliss.

RE: Joseph Jr "This is a question..."
Joseph/All: Give me a brake. Yes, People should take personal responsibility for there actions. But, the banks are not responsible to steal from low income consumers. It's good that you have gotten yourself out of hard times. I'm sure it wasn't easy. I hope you didn't step on or steal from others to get where you are. If so I hope you get what's coming to you. If/when you end up back in those hard times, I'm sure Mr. Kenneth Lewis (BoA CEO) will suck you for all that you'll let him. The fact is: Folks exceeding funds should NOT give the bank the right to take hundreds of dollars from them. Don't you see?

RE: Zia "A proud BoA..."
Zia/All: There are lots of people out there like you and it would be good for you not to join this forum any longer as it does not apply to you. And you too like many others are caught in the If it doesn't effect me then it must be ok, scenario.

To BoA supporters: It's amazing how easily BoA has captured your support. Some of you defend BoA...and why?...because BoA hasn't stolen from you...because BoA hasn't stolen very much from you...because BoA has some neat online features...you should really stand up victims even if you are not one. At the very least, do not defend and or talk about that which you do not understand. You're just waiting taking up space on what could be a much more productive forum and effective forum. I hope this doesn't represent the space you take up by living on the planet.

Typical: how shyster-apologists invariably obsess over "style" instead of SUBSTANCE and then throw infantile temper tantrums over it!

Poor Dave. I do sincerely commiserate and even agree to a degree: the "post" has indeed grown tedious and tiresome, not only because the subject's been pretty much exhausted to the point of redundancy, but only because shyster-apologists impotently persist in defending the indefensible: that RAMPANT MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! How many wars have been precipitated based upon THAT empty premise?

But speak for yourself, Dave. You might very well be "lost"(as in GIT)but I know exactly where I am and shall be: right here making mincemeat of every shyster-apologist who joins issue!

And so long as it remains populated as well by busty hot young chicks(as it indeed IS, Dave!)the "land of little pink bunnies and pretty trees) appears just as appealing and promising as ever!

I'll sincerely miss your own uniquely cockamamie crackhead commentary, Dave, but not to put too fine a point on it: no one ever asked you to visit much less stay!

But FY(parting)I, Dave: I couldn't be in more perfect form for a five-year-old crackhead novelist these days: At 6'2" I weigh in at a lean, muscular and proportioned 210 pounds and run daily three miles in the 22-24-minutes range. If only site rules would permit I'd happily link you to my recently published fitness book. And you were concerned for my supposed "high blood pressure." Thanks for CARING, Dave!

So what are the REST of you petty- but like-minded shyster-apologists doing in life that's even the least bit creative or constructive except WHINING LIKE A BUNCH OF CRYBABIES???? Isn't high past time you all simply ran home to mama and gave it a rest?

WAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

You keep talking, yet your inane posting style only succeeds in showing how lost you really are.

You've been at this for what? A year now? You keep living in the land of little pink bunnies and pretty trees.

I won't visit this thread any longer since you listen to no one but yourself and POST like SOME five-year OLD on CRACK!

....for SHYSTER-APOLOGISM!

If you don't like answering to the title of shyster-apologist, Mister Gary--TOUGH!--simply stop living up to it then!

Whether you think it's "old" or not it's the most perfectly accurate and apt moniker and I'll resort to it so long as I like. If you don't like THAT might "I suggest" then that you go foist your shyster-apologism ELSEWHERE.

Now to your inarticulate rebuttal:

1)You're as illiterate as your "thread" is incorrect. Nowhere did I "blame" the bank for "not keeping track of(my)spending and not stopping(me)when(I)overspend." REMEDIAL READING is in order here--again. I've overspent nothing and my personal checking account has never, ever been referenced here.

It's not surprising in the least that the "majority of the responses" rebut in favor of shyster-apologists--they have the most at risk to lose via profiteering extortion should CORPORATE "responsibility" ever be compelled to prevail and the corruption of outrageous charges abolished.

Besides, the lynch mob mentality or "majority" scarcely justifies lynching itself. So try yet another inept rebuttal, Mister Gary, for the only person you're mature and qualified enough to tell to "grow up and take responsibility for your own actions" is YOURSELF. Save that inept attempt to apologize and excuse those outrageous charges for the GULLIBLE--the white won't wash here!

2)"There is really not much(you)need to say about" your next bone of contention simply because you have so little of anything rational or relevant TO say!

But your fatuous rebuttal does indeed demonstrate at least a superficial mastery of the INVALID COMPARISON: bars or fast food joints scarcely qualify to compete with banks in the SHYSTERISM theater. Neither bars nor fast food joints are empowered to inflict upon their clienteles arbitrary, capricious, exorbitant, extortionate, disproportionate, UN-checked and UN-regulated fleecing ripoff fees far above and beyond the list cost or posted price of the transaction for good or service(food or drink)itself!!!! GET IT???? In fact, goods and services are NONEXISTENT throughout the transacted penalty fees!!!! GET IT???? In short, Mister Gary, you're ineptly attempting to advocate PAYING AN EXTRAVAGANT SOMETHING FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! How sage and wise! So try yet another inept rebuttal--yet again!

Ludicrous and ridiculous, indeed, are your obstinate but impotent attempts to acquit corporate shysterism and IRRESPONSIBILITY.

I can scarcely "mismanage" money belonging to an account which isn't even mine(REMEDIAL READ, Mister Gary). Wrong again though: NO FEES "are clearly stated" when bank customers sign up for their accounts. In point of fact such fees change arbitrarily and capriciously--unchecked and unregulated--at the bank's WHIMSY!

And again "majority" MOB-RULE scarcely justifies MOB MURDER--except in your misguided world, Mister Gary. Simply because the MAL-"practice" of fleecing ripoff shyster fees "occurs" en masse amongst "every financial institution" makes it neither ETHICAL, JUST NOR RIGHT. So try yet another inept rebuttal--yet again!

NO one "owes" ME ANY-thing. But banks do indeed owe their account customers FAIRNESS, FAIR TREATMENT AND GOOD FAITH--as alien and foreign as those simple concepts must be to such a SUPREME shyster-apologist as yourself. And EVERYONE "owes" it to themselves to expect and demand that "responsibility," so-called, isn't ONE-sided and PARTIAL to the bank's sole advantage and benefit alone. GET IT????

Your remedial reading ability is as "worthless" as your witless rebuttal, Mister Gary. I pointed out a SINGLE(as in ONE)credit card company that got it "right." As for those "late" and "overlimit" penalty fees, so-called, this particular credit card company has RESPONSIBLY REVERSED NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF THOSE AT CUSTOMER INSISTENCE AS WELL!!!!

Such CORPORATE "responsibility" isn't "worthless": it's PRICELESS!!!!

So don't presume to preach to others to take personal "responsibility" until you learn to cease and desist your incompetent attempts to defend the indefensible: corporate IR-responsibility!

Perhaps then you'll be a little less than the unmistakably MISERABLE person you must inescapably be!

PS Good Luck, Dave! Your head is about as EMPTY as your talk--and THAT'S as EMPTY as EITHER can get! Your "thread" is the perfect example.

Good Luck Gary. Joe's head is about as thick as it can get. I think he posts his complaints just to hear himself talk, this thread is an excellent example.

Joseph

Where to begin....

First please stop using the "shyster-apologists" phrase, as it is getting old. May I suggest referring to a thesaurus for some new and uplifting insults?


Now to your "eloquent" rebuttal:

1. You say that this thread is not about who is at fault but whether the Banks should be able to charge these fees.

You are incorrect, the entire thread is about who is to blame.... you are blaming the Bank for not keeping track of your spending and not stopping you when you over spend. While the majority of the responses are telling you to grow up and take responsibility for you own actions.

2. This part I have to quote because it is so ludicrous that I do not think I can do it justice by summarizing it. And I quote:
"NOR has this "thread" EVER been about defending that consumers should or ought to be "depending on the bank to monitor" they're spending.

INSTEAD, this "thread" has been about rightly "depending" on any bank to be corporately RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH to program the most DEPENDABLE automated system possible that's DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to actually ASSIST rather than SWINDLE its consumer users."

There is really not much I need to say about this ... It is a ridiculous as blaming the bartender for serving you drinks before you get caught on an DUI or blaming McDonalds for being overweight because you eat too much fast food.

The rest of your rebuttal is again blaming the Bank for your mismanagement of money. The fees are clearly stated we you sign up for the account. You also knew about them after you received the first fee (fees) but unfortunately based on your escalating fee totals you have established a pattern of mismanagement, which is your fault, not the banks. This practice of charging customers fees when their account is overdrawn or over the limit is not unique to BoA as it occurs in every financial intuition. Oh and while I am at it an automatic deduction is considered an electronic check so it you have them returned for NSF than you are writing bad checks.

Look I know I will not change your view based on the liberal mantra of "everyone owes me!" but I can hope. On final point, in your original post you stated that the credit card companies get it right (denying your charge is you do not have enough available credit) why cant the bank. If you would take some time to look there are hundreds of complaints about over the limit charges from credit cards so your example is worthless.

Please take some responsibility for your actions and you will be a much happier person.

When-oh-when will the clearly comatose Shyster-Apologists ever, EVER get it????

I've had to redundantly and repetitively RE-respond to this "thread" because the UN-reasoning IRRATIONALE I read and RE-read here is REMARKABLY "disturbing."

First off, Mister Gary, forget trying so ineptly to second-guess where I'm "coming from" since due to either illiteracy, obliviousness or both you've YET to even understand much less comprehend the "arguments" made here.

NONE of this "thread" is about who's at "fault" or to "blame" for consumers "incurring" these "outrageous" overdraft charges.

What this "thread" truly IS about is whether consumers should or ought to RIGHTLY incur those charges--AT ALL--IN THE FIRST FRICKIN'PLACE!!!!

And after all that's been printed here it's utterly and unbelievably INCREDIBLE that shyster-apologists like yourself STILL can't, don't or won't GET IT!!!! So READ, RE-READ UNTIL YOU CAN COMPREHEND!

NOR has this "thread" EVER been about defending that consumers should or ought to be "depending on the bank to monitor" their spending.

INSTEAD, this "thread" has been about rightly "depending" on any bank to be corporately RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH to program the most DEPENDABLE automated system possible that's DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to actually ASSIST rather than SWINDLE its consumer users.

Why can't, don't or won't you shyster-apologists ever GET IT????

"The way to fight this" is neither APOLOGISTIC nor SIMPLISTIC: the REAL way to RESPONSIBLY "fight this" is to outright REFUSE to EVER be SWINDLED and to protest this corporate IRRESPONSIBILITY in every last effective quarter.

"The part that really bothers me is there is no" CORPORATE responsibility and in this shyster bank's case NEVER HAS BEEN!!!!

You want to talk "force," Mister Gary? Well, get LITERATE and try this "thread":

No one FORCES the shyster bank to charge exorbitant, extortionate and DIS-PROPORTIONATE penalty charges and fees for even the most MINUTE of debit overdrafts--often amounting to literally CENTS!!!! GET IT????

No one FORCES the shyster bank to DELIBERATELY program its fleecing automated system to DELIBERATELY accept overdraft debits as well as to DELIBERATELY report FALSE, INACCURATE AND MISLEADING account debit INFORMATION!!!! GET IT????

RESPONSIBILITY, so-called, runs TWO WAYS!!!! GET IT????

Why do you so ineptly defend the indefensible: the burden of "responsibility," so-called, loads the shoulders of CONSUMERS alone to the shyster bank's ONE-SIDED advantage and favor--at least according to your ill-reasoned irrationale.

You want to talk "responsibility," Mister Gary?

The bank IS INDEED "responsible" DELIBERATELY AND BY DESIGN to NOT SWINDLE its consumers of their money!

The bank IS INDEED "responsible" to DELIBERATELY DESIGN its fleecing automated system to DELIBERATELY DECLINE obviously STOPPABLE debit overdrafts--rifling consumer checkbooks is scarcely necessary so forget that shyster-apologist song-and-dance! If a credit card company can do it the shyster bank can do it too! GET IT????

The "responsibility" IS INDEED "ultimately" the shyster BANK's to CHOOSE and DECIDE to CEASE and DESIST from charging consumers the exorbitant, extortionate and DISPROPORTIONATE overdraft penalty charges and fees to DELIBERATELY AND DESIGNEDLY PROFITEER at the consumer's EXPENSE--of whatever income. GET IT???? READ AND COMPREHEND OR REMEDIAL READ UNTIL YOU DO.

It is, in short, the bank's CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY to "monitor" and "ultimately" STOP its own THIEVING SHYSTERISM!!!! GET IT????

So, Mister Gary, you stick to your own shyster-apologistic "bottom line" but don't even THINK ABOUT attempting to presume so ineptly to dictate to me or any other RESPONSIBLE consumer here THEIRS! GOT IT? GOOD!

And to Zia: Stick to your own shyster-apologistic "math," quit WHINING and quit "blaming others" for your own sheer APATHETIC INDIFFERENCE to the distressed plight of those impoverished income consumers getting SWINDLED so ROYALLY by your SHYSTER bank! GOT IT? GOOD!

To Joseph:

Let me tell you that I also am a Low-Income customer and that from doing my math, Bank of America has not taken from account, not one time. If there any debits, they resulted from my actions alone. Quit blaming others for your actions and don't think that low-income customers get down to the dirt treatment.

Joseph Jr

I had to respond to this thread because the reasoning I see here is frankly disturbing.

Before I go on I want you to know that I am not a wealthy person. My family lives paycheck to paycheck with both myself and my wife working full time to make ends meet. I have also been hit with these overdraft charges and made the same arguments as you do so I know where you are coming from.

Fortunately I realized after I was forced to declare bankruptcy to save my home, that while these charges are outrageous it was my fault that I was incurring them. They have a very large s****.> The way to fight this is actually simple, monitor your own spending and do not spend more than you make. In my case it involved a major lifestyle change but I am so much better of now than I was.

The part that really bothers me is there is no personal responsibility anymore. The bank did not force me to spend more than I had. The bank did not force me to use their online service instead of policing my own spending. The bank is not responsible to give me money or look through each of my checks to make sure that I have enough money to cover everything. The responsibility was ultimately my own and once I realized that the Bank stopped being able to charge me the fees.

It doesn't matter whether you are of low, moderate or middle class income it is still your personal responsibility to monitor your spending.

That is the bottom line.

I just wanted to let you know that while I was employed with BoA, I did recieve many calls like yours that due to one reason or another their direct deposit did not come in as expected. We were told to look at the history of the account, if you had very few OD fees in the last year, we could refund some of the current OD fees for you. I refunded more than my share of OD fees for customers who live month-to-month. I understand that living like that most people do not get very much money. My philosophy was and still is that if you have lots of money in your account and you overdraw it, then sorry....I would much rather give back the OD fees to the little old retired lady living on 500.00 per month just because she needed it more. I have done that many times and that is why I am no longer an employee of BoA. They said I had given too many OD fee refunds to people BoA didn't feel needed it.

BoA's policy is based on what amount of money and types of accounts you have with them. If you have 5 different types of accounts and are an Advantage customer, BoA's policy is to refund all fees regardless of past experiences. I got into an arguement with my supervisor over this because I did not feel it was right

BoA has what they call "relationship pricing". Generally what that means is just as I stated, if you have lots of money in your account or if you have many different accounts at the same bank, you can and most generally will be refunded all your fees. But if you are the little old lady living off 500.00 per month then you don't deserve it. That is why I am no longer employed with them. I didn't feel it was right.

I also bank with Bank of America, have done so for the past 4 years. Yes, every once in awhile we have been hit with an overdraft, mainly because either my husband or myself forgot to write down a debit card transaction. But this year we got hit with a large fraudulent transaction that caused our account to be overdrawn.

The first thing that BOA did was put the money back into our account right away. The second thing they did was REFUND all overdrafts immediately. Their customer service has been absolutly wonderful. I would bank with them any day of the week. With online banking now, we have no problems whatsoever.

We can now automaticly know what has been posted, especially debit card transactions so we never are overdrawn again. We love their bill paying, no more stamps, no more proving a payment was made. We are not service charged on this account because we have direct deposit.

It is fantastic. I am sorry, but I have to take up for this bank.

Bottom line is.....

This topic is really not that important to the customer that is so-called "well off" as it is to the person that gets ripped off on a daily basis by everybody from their employer to their financial institutions or even getting targeted by PD for minor traffic violations.

I happen to lead my life in an example form for my children so they can learn how to be a good citizen. I also am what you consider a Low-Income banking customer. Long story short.. I already get little wages from my employer, I get pulled over all the time for absolutely no reason sometimes. (I refuse to blame this on Racism, because I believe these Officers just weren't raised right! - parent's fault) So now I'm paying so called justified traffic tickets and I am getting ripped off from my bank every chance they get.

In the real world......

There are people that make mistakes.

BofA, wait ALL bank institutes should take time to take this into consideration for all the Low-Income customers who cannot afford to put money into a savings overdraft or cannot be approved for a credit card. Sure I can balance my checkbook correctly and all that other jibberish that the others have said. However, the fact is that when you live penny to penny along with a banks manipulative monetary processing system, a Low-Income customer as myself is more likely to work this way....

Let's say I have $10 in my account (Yes I know I'm broke!) Let's say it's 6PM. Now I have a 2 year old daughter that needs Milk, Diapers, and I need go to work at night and need gas. I realize that I only have $10 in my account but I still buy these items and BofA accepts these transactions that I deem as necessities.Total equaled out to around $20. Since these were done at night, I know that I have until 6PM on the following day to somehow borrow some money to balance my account before these items are processed on midnight on the next day. BofA has intentionally programmed their processing system this way supposedly to help out the consumer. I don't always have the luxury of getting that money borrowed by then and then in turn get ripped off by NSF's. Now in this situation do I forget about going to work until payday, and have my daughter where cloth diapers and have her drink water until my next pay day?

See if you don't worry about issues like these, then I don't beleive this issues pertain to you wahtsoever. Therefore, an opinion on the behalf of these PERFECT, check-balancing, well-off individuals is meaningless to the Joesph's and Jose's of the world because quite frankly....You just don't understand. It's easy to visualize things, but to experience them is whole different thing.

The whole point is that a bank cannot justify a $32 NSF charge for a $1 purchase. There LEGAL excuse (and let's not confuse an excuse with justiciation) is that it is in their policy to charge NSF's in these situations. Legal mumbo jumbo.

The real question to ask is if this morally correct? Because they can bring out all the documents to make it politically correct. I'm tired of living this way! If I was well-off like these other people in this forum and talking about a balance of $1000 and $2000 in my account then I probably would be out buying necessities as opposed to taking time to write in here.

So to the people that do not have a clue, at least respect opinions of people in the real world and get on with your perfect lives because if you don't get it now, you will never understand!

If you have a monthly charge to lets say the phone company and you only have 20 dollars in your account, but the bill is 40 dollars, it should be declined. Why? Because if I try to use my debit card to pay for it in person it would decline it. That's the way it works with my bank. Charges that are monthly and done automatically go through with a 30 dollar charge, but if I want to fill up my car with gas it will be declined. Why is that?

Lets get back to the real problem with banks now, ATM fees.

Rhonda. Enough stating the obvious please. We all know that spending money you don't have will cause these IFF's. As I said before: "We all know that the only way to prevent these IFF's from happening is to not overdraw funds." At least that is what I have found with BoA. You work for BoA huh? All right I've got some Q's for ya: Maybe you can teach me something else. I'll keep it simple for you. Why does BoA not use reasonability or at least give its customers benefit of the doubt when charging IFF's? Doesn't BoA have "Higher Standards" than that? Please see the Hypothetical Scenario(which is similar to what happened to me)below for an example of BoA's stealing practices.

Monday my balance was $10
Tuesday (1pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (2pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (3pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (4pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (5pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (6pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (7pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (8pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (9pm) I spend $1
Tuesday (10pm) I spend $8 (My BAL should be -$7)

Now here is how bank of America posts my transactions today(Wednesday):

Beginning Balance on Wednesday $10

-$8 BAL_$2
-$1 BAL_$1
-$1 BAL_$0
-$1 BAL_$-1
-$1 BAL_$-2
-$1 BAL_$-3
-$1 BAL_$-4
-$1 BAL_$-5
-$1 BAL_$-6
-$1 BAL_$-7
-$30 IFF BAL_-37
-$30 IFF BAL_-67
-$30 IFF BAL_-97
-$30 IFF BAL_-127
-$30 IFF BAL_-157
-$30 IFF BAL_-187
-$30 IFF BAL_-217
+$300 Direct Deposit BAL_$83

Some would say that I was given a $7 loan for one day at an interest rate of 3000%.

What would you say? Let me guess: "If you don't spend any money or write any checks before your deposit is there, then there wouldn't be a problem with overdrawing your account."
HA

Mother Superior's back posing her trite rhetorical if-then postulates couched in pending-versus-posted debit doubletalk--yet again.

Well, try this: IF BofA RESPONSIBLY restrained itself from inflicting upon unsuspecting account customers its exorbitant, extortionate, fleecing, low-life, ripoff penalty fees for unintentional, unpremeditated overdrawn account balances IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN there would be no "problem" at all, whatever, indeed!

Notice how corrupt shyster-apologists invariably retreat behind the fine-print terms of the "LAW"--like the aforementioned maggots skulking beneath rotting boards--when apologizing and making lame excuses for shyster malpractices. Well, the "law" may or may not compel certain procedures for the bank's handling of pending-versus-posted debits and whatnot.

But what "law" compels the corrupt shysters at the BofA to inflict upon those selfsame unsuspecting account customers its insidious and invidious schedule of exorbitant and extortionate penalty fees???? Perhaps Mother Superior would cite for everybody here the specific imaginary legal statute for our edification. Of course no such fanciful statute exists--the bank does indeed SWINDLE AND THIEVE from such low, fixed income customers solely because it can get away with it without restraint or restriction, let alone conscience or compunction.

Pity the "Victim" hails from Texas rather than from California where the class-action suit against BofA regarding direct Social Security deposits could be joined. For those California residents affected the attorneys to contact(if not too late)are:

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

Until Mother Superior takes the hint, in the meantime, and heeds her own most admirable advice, MOVES ON, and expeditiously goes elsewhere to meddle and engage in her devious shyster-apologism, then every time it rears its ugly head here, simply shout:
STOP THIEF!!

I have banked with BofA since 1996. While I have not had any problems for the last 4 years, they have been 4 financially good years for me. If you can maintain a balance of a few hundred dollars after all your bills are paid, you'll never have any problems with them. BUT I know this is not possible for allot of folks.

Have you ever had just $2 in the bank? You can't just have $2. You'll incur a fee, and your account will become a negative balance, and then you'll be fee'd for having a negative balance.
Where's the logic? Here's someone who has close to nothing, let's take the $2 and make it -$47.

While I have no beef with BofA, I made the choice to stick with them; I do think the fee structure needs to be re-evaluated for low-income accounts.

Looking back, when I was spending every penny I had every month, I should have used cash exclusively. Debit is sooo convenient, yet somehow if I have cold hard cash in hand, I'll spend it much more responsibly, and if I had relied on cash when it was the scarcest for me, I would have saved hundreds.

Checking accounts are defiantly not the way to manage your money when you need every last bit. They are very convenient if you can afford to maintain a minimum balance of a hundred or so. If I fall on hard times again, this is what I personally plan to do.

No debit transactions. I will withdraw cash on a need-to-spend basis from a BofA ATM machine and carry out my spending in CASH. This way I benefit from not having to be vulnerable by carrying all my money with me (might be lost, stolen etc) and I get to keep the bank from taking hundreds of dollars from me.

If you don't spend any money or write any checks before your deposit is there, then there wouldn't be a problem with overdrawing your account. Bank of America does not post your direct deposit until they are TOLD by the issuing company (such as Social Security). If we receive your direct deposit on the 15th but you are not supposed to receive it until the 18th, bank of america cannot BY LAW make it available to you any sooner than the 18th, even though they might have received it prior to that date.

If you don't spend any money or write any checks before your deposit is there, then there wouldn't be a problem with overdrawing your account. Bank of America does not post your direct deposit until they are TOLD by the issuing company (such as Social Security). If we receive your direct deposit on the 15th but you are not supposed to receive it until the 18th, bank of america cannot BY LAW make it available to you any sooner than the 18th, even though they might have received it prior to that date.

If you don't spend any money or write any checks before your deposit is there, then there wouldn't be a problem with overdrawing your account. Bank of America does not post your direct deposit until they are TOLD by the issuing company (such as Social Security). If we receive your direct deposit on the 15th but you are not supposed to receive it until the 18th, bank of america cannot BY LAW make it available to you any sooner than the 18th, even though they might have received it prior to that date.

If you don't spend any money or write any checks before your deposit is there, then there wouldn't be a problem with overdrawing your account. Bank of America does not post your direct deposit until they are TOLD by the issuing company (such as Social Security). If we receive your direct deposit on the 15th but you are not supposed to receive it until the 18th, bank of america cannot BY LAW make it available to you any sooner than the 18th, even though they might have received it prior to that date.

Fortunately, neither my personal account nor my private banking practices are the topic of either this post or any disputant's "curiosity."

I do gather, though, that certain unnamed CREDIT UNIONS, being more customer-service oriented, do act both more responsively and RESPONSIBLY by just about anybody's "standards."

Unlike the shyster-apologists rebutting this post, I'm not one to attempt to meddle in the banking preferences of others, but perhaps you could consider flexing your own leg muscles to check some credit unions out for yourself.

Good Luck!

Corporations like BoA will do everything in there power to suck the money and life out of month-to-month low-income individuals and families. Why? Because low-income people are an easy target. It is survival of the fittest and the bank is, in uncertain terms, the fittest. BoA is at the top of the pyramid and as so it is easy for them to take from us at the bottom. It's VERY easy money for them. Did you know that BoA will actually increase the IFF amount (30 to 33 in my case) depending on the number you have? I guess they know an easy target when they see one.

And the tellers at the bank are only following marching orders. BoA would replace each of them with AUTOMATION if possible.

If you are not in the category of low income and have never had an INSUFFICIENT FUNDS FEE then you really have no business defending BoA. We all know that the only way to prevent these IFF's from happening is to not overdraw funds. We've heard that over and over from several ignorant persons already. And please, if you're one of those ignorant persons, don't take it personally. It only means that you are uninformed or unaware of what this discussion is supposed to be about in the first place. Obviously, it's best to keep up with your balance. But let's stop defending BoA with that excuse and understand the damage done by BoA already. These IFF's are unconscionable at best. It actually saddens me to hear people defend this and other conglomerate super power(s) in regard to their unreasonable and unethical practices of "Insufficient funds Fees."

I am someone who is living month-to-month trying to get on my feet. I am what BoA would consider an easy target of IFF's. I don't keep excellent track of my balances and can't build any type of savings at this point. And just when I think I am on my feet, I've had BoA knock me back down with many IFFs at one time. I've had the IFF's cause me to get other IFF's. Two months ago I was charged 9 IFF's because my direct deposit did not go through as expected by me. So because I was ONE day late, BoA felt like they were entitled $270. Please someone defend BoA on that one! And had the transactions at least posted in the order they were made, I would have only been charged $30-$60. Assuming BoA does not have control of when a transaction is posted, shouldn't they at least use reasonability or benefit of the doubt when giving these IFF's? And if they do NOT use reasonability or benefit of the doubt, wouldn't it most definitely be STEALING. I never agreed to these fees. I'd rather have been declined those purchases. And even if not declined, shouldn't they take care of me. I put money in the account to cover the transactions, as do most people who are victims of IFF's. What's BoA motto againHigher Standards.
Yea well I think the low-income month-to-month families/individuals that have had millions stolen have higher standards than BoA. I think we all should.

I'd love to join a class action against BoA. I think so-called Joseph is attempting to get through to a difficult audience. BoA is STEALING from low-income people. It's that simple. They do it without conscience, ethics, or thought. It's an automated process. It's a computer doing it. And it was programmed to maximize profit for BoA.

I will say that BoA probably appears to be great bank for those of you who can keep a good balance or those of you who need not worry about a balance because your pockets go deep. But you should understand what type of financial institution you're dealing with. You're dealing with one who would steal from you if you happened yourself into bad luck or bad times.

In any case, shame on you for defending BoA in regard to the topic at hand. As if times weren't hard enough.

Fortunately, neither my account nor my private banking practices comprise the topic of either this post or for that matter any disputant's "curiosity."

Same holds true for how I flex my substantial muscle, consumer or otherwise, though Dave from Everett, WA(so concerned for my "blood pressure")could be intrigued to read my recently published fitness tract; I'm STILL waiting to compare physical conditioning notes with him, but understandably, he's quite reticent about subjects he's clearly unacquainted with.

If yours is a serious query, however, I do gather that certain unnamed CREDIT UNIONS(I'm not in the business of meddling in people's banking preferences)are more customer service-oriented and do indeed act more corporately responsive and RESPONSIBLE by just about anybody's "standards"--the sole true purport of this post.

Perhaps you should consider then flexing some leg muscle to visit one and check it out!

Just out of curiosity, Joseph, have you withdrawn your funds from this bank that has perpetrated such thievery on your account? Have you used your muscle as a consumer to choose not to do business there? If so, which bank did you find that acted more appropriately, according to your standards?

Rhonda, or should I address you more respectfully as Mother Superior?

I have belittled no one except perhaps the most obstinate and incorrigible of shyster-apologism.

This post has been not about requests for "help" but rather about sounding a cautionary consumer warning--and quite effectively so judging by the stubborn though futile persistence of shyster-apologists.

No one's asked for your "help." No one needs your "help." No one wants your "help." So either YOU "need" to stop being so pompous and presumptuous about offering your unsolicited bogus "advice" or simply go someplace else and stop whining.

No one really gives a flying hang about what you "think," but I think YOU "live" to whine and condescend and sermonize about anything and everything which you know absolutely NOTHING whatever. Well, it fails to hold any credibility here.

"You seem to be the type of person" who most mistakenly presumes they're far more SELF-important than either ability or reality could ever plausibly dictate.

I've asked NO-one, much less you, to do ANY-thing for me and scarcely requre any trite lectures from you about self-help: frankly, my dear, you're not qualified.

There's no explanation or EXCUSE, "excellent" or otherwise, for shysterism and THIEVERY.

This is MY post and I'll rebut it to the last for as long as the site permits and for as long as I(not you)deem necessary.

So skip the puerile preaching, "LEARN" from the error of your ways(the misguided fallacy and falsehood of your shyster-apologism)and move on YOURSELF.

Joseph, you have continued to belittle everyone who has tried to help you. Either you need to heed a little advice or just go somewhere else and stop complaining.

I think you live to complain and belittle everyone and everything. You seem to be the type of person who wants someone to do EVERYthing for you instead of learning to do it yourself.

There are several excellent explainations to your issue and you continue to call everyone names and continue to act childish and not LEARN from your mistakes and move on.

Yet another silver-spooner responds!

Are shyster-apologists visiting this site generally THAT retarded and unable to read and comprehend or WHAT? It's truly ASTOUNDING!

This post has never presumed outstanding balances amounting to thousands of dollars! How ridiculously absurd! If you've got that amount of funds in your account then of course there's less likelihood of any problem arising.

We're talking low, end-of-the-month, fixed income account balances of twenty dollars or twenty cents--not $2000! Which is ALL absolutely and utterly IRRELEVANT to the sole issue at hand, which is, to REPEAT, once more and again: no shyster bank possesses any ethical good-faith prerogative to penalize and fleece such accounts, typically overdrawn by a matter of literally CENTS, with its exorbitant and extortionate schedule of predatory, ripoff fees amounting upwards of $32 or more a shot, at all, IN THE FIRST FRICKIN' PLACE!!!! It's nothing short of vile THIEVERY!!!!

THAT's the issue. If you can't GET IT, then kindly take some COMMONSENSICAL remedial reading instruction and kindly learn to:

READ AND COMPREHEND!!!!

If I have $2000 in my account and I use my check card for $200 at the supermarket, then the automated system will tell me I have $1800 available. If the supermarket just got authorization for the $200 and the actual slip isn't submitted by midnight on the next business day, I will (according to telephone and online banking) have $2000 in my account again. However, when the charge is submitted, back to $1800.

ALWAYS use your check register for checks, check card purchases and ATM withdrawals. It is much easier that way.

If I have $2000 in my account and I use my check card for $200 at the supermarket, then the automated system will tell me I have $1800 available. If the supermarket just got authorization for the $200 and the actual slip isn't submitted by midnight on the next business day, I will (according to telephone and online banking) have $2000 in my account again. However, when the charge is submitted, back to $1800.

ALWAYS use your check register for checks, check card purchases and ATM withdrawals. It is much easier that way.

If I have $2000 in my account and I use my check card for $200 at the supermarket, then the automated system will tell me I have $1800 available. If the supermarket just got authorization for the $200 and the actual slip isn't submitted by midnight on the next business day, I will (according to telephone and online banking) have $2000 in my account again. However, when the charge is submitted, back to $1800.

ALWAYS use your check register for checks, check card purchases and ATM withdrawals. It is much easier that way.

If I have $2000 in my account and I use my check card for $200 at the supermarket, then the automated system will tell me I have $1800 available. If the supermarket just got authorization for the $200 and the actual slip isn't submitted by midnight on the next business day, I will (according to telephone and online banking) have $2000 in my account again. However, when the charge is submitted, back to $1800.

ALWAYS use your check register for checks, check card purchases and ATM withdrawals. It is much easier that way.

Shyster-Apologists emerged from the woodwork in droves during my absence so I'll rebut each in their turn:

To Zia: No, Krista isn't "right." At the risk of redundancy, my particular posting has never had anything whatever to do with the deliberately diversionary issues you raise, trying in vain to confuse the real issues at hand, so you can forget right off all that apologist doubletalk about pending versus posted debits. If any account's balance is already minimal or even zero then the automated system can and should indeed be programmed simply to decline any and all further debits attempted at the retail site. There's just no justifiable pretext for the contrary except to permit negative debits in order to fleece low-account balance customers further with ripoff penalty fees. If you can't grasp this simple concept then kindly consider enrolling in some REMEDIAL READING instruction. As repeated here ad nauseam: a credit card company of mine at my request has already programmed its automated system to reject any and all attempted retail debits which exceed my credit line balance and now there's never any difficulty at all. So if they can do it then BofA can do it. It's just that simple.

To Randahl: Congratulations! Your extremely astute commentary demonstrates that you indeed understand how the insidious system operates(and why)so I send you my sincerest compliments on your ability to thoroughly read and comprehend!

To Rhonda: First off, my name isn't "Joe," and you're not my familiar, so don't pretend to be. Nor are you a credible Sunday school sermon teacher so forget the silly infantile lecture--that tired pending-verses-posted debit doubletalk
doesn't wash any more from you then from Zia before you.

If you yourself want to "take time to listen" and thereby "learn" something then "get a clue and some common sense" about THIS: no bank "LEGALLY and CORRECTLY"(what "law" states that bank customers are bound to pay such fees?)charges overdraft fees--they do it only because they hold account balances for ransom and so can get away with it without challenge except by civil class action lawsuit as is presently happening(such a lawsuit is pending against BofA for wrongfully appropriating overdraft fees amongst other charges from direct social security deposits).

No one gives a flying hang whether BofA employees are accountants or not, so kindly stuff that equally tired song-and-dance up the proper orifice once and for all time--no one's asking the IR-responsible to be "responsible" for ANYTHING, much less purported "errors," which aren't really errors at all.

It is "YOUR responsibility" as a shyster-apologist to realize once and for all: in GOOD FAITH business dealings there is simply no ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION for ANY bank to charge customers such exorbitant and extortionate fleecing fees for transaction register mistakes AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. So stop trying to DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE with your lame shyster-apologist arguments. Instead, get a "little common sense" about corporate RESPONSIBILITY and stop spouting your lame apologist arguments and excuses attempting in vain to justify and rationalize this insidious system of fleecing low customer account balances with these RIPOFF FEES--or "don't HAVE AN ACCOUNT" in HUMANITY.

"Personally, I think a" CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TEST "should be given to ANYONE who wants to" fleece low-account-balance customers with fleecing ripoff fees "just to see how much they DON'T know" or understand about GOOD FAITH BUSINESS DEALINGS "so that it can be explained to them in a way they can understand and learn." Get my drift, Rhonda?

Your lame arguments are much akin to the means-justifies-the-ends rationale of this whole atrocious Iraq debacle: we attacked Iraq to topple evil Saddam Hussain and do away with imaginary "weapons of mass destruction"(irresponsible rationale)while ignoring the most basic issue at hand: WE HAD NO RIGHT OR JUST CAUSE TO INVADE A SOVEREIGN NATION AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DISAPPROVED OF ITS LEADER OR TRUMPED UP THE EXCUSE OF NON-EXISTENT WEAPONS. After all, the only "weapons of mass destruction" I've witnessed at work have been those bearing US brand name labels!

Exact selfsame thing here: your equally lame irresponsible rationale for customer-fleecing fees(pending versus posted debits, blah, blah, blah)IGNORES THE MOST BASIC ISSUE AT HAND--CONVENIENTLY: your dishonest, predatory, unscrupulous, thieving bank cohorts HAVE NO RIGHT OR JUST CAUSE TO EXTORT FROM LOW ACCOUNT BALANCE CUSTOMERS THEIR HARD-EARNED MONIES VIA THEIR INSIDIOUS SYSTEM OF EXORBITANT RIPOFF FEES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF TRANSACTION REGISTER "ERRORS" AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. They do it only because they can get away with it(after all, might makes right, doesn't it?).

So I repeat: GET A CLUE(AND A LIFE)ABOUT CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND PERHAPS YOU'LL QUALIFY YOURSELF TO REJOIN THE HUMAN COMMUNITY.

To David: "Kudos" to you for deftly demonstrating once more your inability to read and comprehend. "Sadly, folks like" you "live to" apolgize and make lame excuses for shyster establishments like the BofA "and believe the world" has to buy into your propaganda and "everyone should cater" to your view of this site as being your own personal amateur debating society in which you invariably LOSE by your utter LACK of "common sense" or sensibility. An exercise in UTTER FUTILITY indeed! PS I'm not "Joe" to you either.

To Troy: you've either been born with the proverbial spoon in your mouth or you're independently wealthy to the extent of always having money to burn. Unfortunately, that's not everybody else's blessed lot in life, so don't presume to preach to low balance account customers struggling to live on marginal means to keep their check registers "always in the positive." There would "never(be)any problem" indeed if the bank took the RESPONSIBILITY to program its automated system to ACCURATELY report up-to-date account information AND to promptly DECLINE ATTEMPTED DEBITS EXCEEDING low account balances. PERIOD. If the automated system is as inaccurate and UN-reliable as you admit then it should be dismantled as it evidently HAS NO USE IN THE FIRST PLACE--except to aid and abet DECEPTIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE MALPRACTICES!!!!

At least you outright ADMIT(AT LAST)that the automated system is indeed set up as it is to "maximize NSF/overdraft fee income," but that scarcely excuses or justifies its blatant shyster malpractice.

Writing "EVERYTHING down" in check registers has no more to do with this shyster malpractice than that entire stale argument about pending versus posted debits, though you're to be congratulated for maintaining a personal income and "positive balance" not available to the least fortunate inhabitants of the planet! Lucky, lucky you!

All you've done by defending the shyster malpractice by admitting that "what the bank says" is so inaccurate and unreliable is to roundly confirm and verify the absolute TRUTH OF THE MATTER: the bank's automated system is programmed to outright LIE!

What indeed will be the next whining shyster-apologist's posted excuse and rationale for THAT???? I for one can hardly wait to read it!

If you make sure your check register is always in the positive, then you will never have any problem, regardless of when the transactions clear or in what order they pay items. Make sure you ALWAYS issue checks and authorize other transactions according to your check register and NEVER rely on the balance the telephone banking system or online banking system says you have.

However, there are a couple of things I would like to point out.

(1) When you use your Bank of America check card, the transaction is authorized and becomes a "pending" transaction. The transaction information WILL show up online immediately, including the name of the merchant, date, and amount authorized. However, you should also remember that some places, such as gas stations, will authorize a different amount .. most gas stations around here authorize only $1.00, even if you buy $20.00 in gas. You need to remember this when spending money on anything else.

(2) Pending authorizaions fall off Bank of America's systems NOT because of any law or statute ... the law does NOT specify how long an authorization must or must not stay on the account. This part is completely up to Bank of America. NationsBank used to keep these authorizations on the account for 3 days, and this practice continued after they bought Bank of America.

The trend in the banking industry has been to keep authorizations on the account for shorter periods of time; Bank of America is not alone in this practice. However, the reason they and other banks do this is to try and maximize NSF/overdraft fee income.

Having said that, however, you should always remember that if you have written EVERYTHING down in your check register and if your check register still shows a positive balance, then you won't have any problems. I've been with Bank of America for a long time and I've never had problems like this because I always spend according to what my own register says, not what the bank says.

These comments were not meant to be mean or cruel, only to help.

Kudos to Rhonda for a clear and concise explanation of banking practices.

Sadly, folks like Joe live to complain and believe the world revolves around them and everyone should cater to their needs and wants.

I certainly don't condone illegal or unethical processes forced upon unsuspecting consumers, but one has to have common sense.

The entire banking industry is regulated by the US Government. The first complaint should start there.

I am a former employee (customer service representative) for BOA. I would get call from people like Joe EVERY DAY ALL DAY. When they would take time to listen, they would learn very useful and helpful information.

The way a check/debit card works:
If you have a balance in your account of say $100
You go to the grocery store and spen 75.00, that would leave 25.00 in your account.
Next you get gas for 20.00, then you know you have 5.00 in your account, however, most merchants don't "authorize" the exact amount.

Most gas stations are only authorizing you card for $1.00. That's right only ONE dollar. So when you check your balance it will show there is 19.00 more in your account than what SHOULD be there.

This is not the doing of BOA, this is the merchant itself. Merchants run the card for an "authorization" (just to make sure you have money to cover it). There are some gas stations that will authorize your card for 50.00 even if you only get 5.00 worth of gas.

BOA will not post a debit to your account until it has the merchant receipt. This again is not BOA's doing, this is the merchant. BOA has to have PROOF that the transaction was a legitimate one and waits for the merchant to submit the receipt. If you make a purchase on a Tuesday, by Thursady the hold is release. Bank of America cannot hold an authorization BY LAW for longer than 24 hrs. If it takes the merchant longer than 24 hrs to send the receipt, the funds show in your "available" balance.

So let's look at what we've learned.

You have 100.00 to start off with
You get gas for 20.00 ($1.00 held)
You check your balance it shows an "available" balance of 99.00.
If it takes the merchant 5 days to submit the reciept for that purchase, then 24 hrs later your available balance is again 100.00.
Then you go out to eat (most resturaunts include a tip for the authorization) and your bill is 50.00 (they hold say 55.00) Then when you call the automated system or check balance at ATM, it shows your available balance is 45.00.
You then go to the grocery store, and spend all of the remainaing 45.00.
If all 3 of these items come in for payment on the same day, this is how they would "post"

100.00 beginning balance
-50.00 resturaunt
balance after posting 50.00
-45.00 grocery store
5.00 balance
-20.00 gas purchase

so you see, the 20.00 gas purchse even though the funds were available at the time of purchase, they were not available at time of posting because it has been spent AGAIN. You would then be charged LEGALLY and CORRECTLY an overdraft fee.

Bank of America employees are NOT accountants and are NOT responsible for your errors. It is YOUR responsibility to keep track of all your transactions in your checkbook register not Bank of Americas. When you call a customer service representative with the Bank, they can give you your current AVAILABLE balance, they cannot see anything that has not posted yet. It is your RESPONSIBILITY to get a little common sense about checking or DON'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT.

Personally, I think a common sense test should be given to ANYONE who wants to open a checking account just to see how much they DON'T know about accounts so that it can be explained to them in a way they can understand and learn.

While I agree that it is the responsibility of the consume to keep accurate banking records, B of A's systems are set up to extract the maximum penalties. Some may call this good business (they are in business to make money). However, the ethics of such a system are, at best, questionable.

These fees obviously affect those who can least afford it, ie., those with low balance accounts.

Some examples of how the system is set up to extract the exhorbitant fees:

1. Largest debits always post first, regardless of time received. For example, yesterday I checked my acount and had one autodebit for $112 show up in the morning. Today, I checked my account, and there was another debit with a 5 FEB posting date but it was deducted before the $112 debit that showed yesterday. Also, there were the more debits of lesser amounts which posted yesterday but did not show up until today.

This is where the shysterism comes in. My largest debit was for $238. Now suppose that I had only $250 in my account. If the $238 is subtracted first, I only have $12 left. Subtract $14 overdraft fee from that and I have -$2.00. But wait, I still have for other debits. By subtracting the $238 first, I can now be charged an NSF fee for each succesive debit. $14 for the first, $25 for the 2nd and $32 for 3 & 4 for a total of $103. Had B of A posted these transactions in the order received, I would only have had 1 NSF fee of $14.

Now let's take it a step further. I have auto-overdraft coverage which covers me with funds from my savings account. I am still charged all NSF fees plus $5.95 for each transaction covered by MY money from MY savings account for a total of about $130. What is the point of having overdraft coverage if I'm still getting charged the fees.

I don't expect B of A to do my accounting for me, nor should I. However, their accounting should accurately reflect the order of transactions. They should NOT be set up to S@#ew me at every opportunity.

My point is this each individual has the responsibility to know their account balance. B of A has the ethical responsibility to treat their customers fairly

Krista is right!

Bank of America online banking/telephone banking account info:

First off, since I have a B of A checking account. I use it to monitor what has posted or what is pending. That is the convenience that their service offers online. The telephone banking offers an acccount balance based on what is pending and what has posted.

If you have a balance of lets say..1,082.88

you write a check for 25.00

don't call the automated system or check your balance online because both will tell you that you have 1082.88 until that check has posted! The bank does not know you wrote that check until they receive it.

Bottom line, until a check or debit/atm transaction has posted, the balance according to the telephone/online banking will remain at 1082.88.

This site justly upholds true FREE SPEECH as guaranteed and protected by US Constitutional First Amendment--which does NOT guarantee ANYBODY(shyster-apologists in particular!)ANY right to be protected against being "offended." So if you don't like it then move to another totalitarian country.

Now, what further "consequences" would Val the WHINER suggest that we suffer in addition to the illegitimate administrative THEFT of our hard-earned funds?

What's "nasty" are shyster-apologists exploiting their "posts" as a "last resort" to WHINE LIKE INFANTILE BRATS due to their "failure" to address the repeatedly ENUMERATED issues of SUBSTANCE at hand which they already KNOW FULL WELL they can never possibly or RESPONSIBLY vindicate!

What's "nasty" is Val the WHINER LYING that I've labeled anybody else at this site as "liars."

What's "nasty" is the "sewage" spewed by shyster-apologists too DEVOID OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT(absent APOLOGISM and BOGUS "advice")in their impotent attempts to WHITEWASH THE INDEFENSIBLE: Institutionalized Shysterism!

Oh, "he" most definitely wants a "solution" all right: another CLASS ACTION SUIT against this shyster bank like the one ALREADY IN PROGRESS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO COURTS!!!!

What's "nasty" is Val the WHINER LYING EVEN FURTHER--I haven't even visited the "local banking center" much less shouted at its underpaid flunkies or called them names, preferring to limit contact to WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE for civil/legal purposes--SOLID ADVICE for fellow consumers similarly SHAFTED! So what "borders on libel," then, are Val the WHINER's false accusations.

We in turn "don't make enough money to put up" with its being STOLEN AND SWINDLED BY SHYSTERS.

So YOU listen and learn: we WON'T "put up with" it--not now or ever.

So YOU don't presume to preach to us how to "keep track of(our)transactions and stop relying on someone else to tell(us)where(our)money went." We already know full well where it went: it was STOLENT AND SWINDLED through the medium of EXORBITANT, FRAUDULENT AND UNAUTHORIZED AUTOMATED DEBITS for neither products nor services under NO CONTRACTS which we ever signed or agreed to be bound by! THIS is the issue, get it?

Keep track of your own transactions, then, and kindly keep OUT of our personal business--at least until you can "vote" with your underdeveloped BRAIN AND SOME "ADULT" COMMON SENSE!!!!

"Frankly," and finally, stop rebutting out of self-inflicted IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY: we've indeed already TRIED closing the account IN WRITING but the shysters even ARTIFICIALLY OBSTRUCTED THAT--they obviously know a lucrative and profitable RIP-OFF SWINDLE when they find one and prefer instead to BLEED IT TO DEATH!

Despite what this website claims, you allow people like Joseph to name-call, curse, and generally spew nastiness with no consequences. Nasty posts like this are the last resort of people who refuse to be adults and take the consequences of their failure to act in a responsible manner. Note his preemptive strike against anyone who responds to his post, labeling them before they respond as "apologists", "shysters", and liars. Note his failure to read and consider what Krista's response was, simply turning around and calling her names. He doesn't want a solution, he just wants to spew sewage which borders on libel.

Go to your local banking center. Talk POLITELY to someone - without name-calling, without shouting, without nastiness. (Those people don't make enough money to put up with abuse for doing their jobs.) Listen. Learn and understand the workings, the positive points, and even the shortcomings of the electronic system. Ask about alternatives and solutions. Then keep track of your transactions and stop relying on someone else to tell you where your money went. If you can't make it work at this bank, try finding a bank that charges less for overdraft fees. SHOP for financial services and vote with your feet.

Frankly, if you treat the local employees the way you talk in this forum, they will be happy to help you close your account.

is where at least one San Diegan graduated from WITH HONORS!

NO debit overdraft amounting to literally cents legitimately merits $32 fleecing fees--unless you support ethical BANKRUPTCY.

There's no "perhaps" about it. You've EXCELLED in your "refresher course" in shyster-apologism but failed MISERABLY in corporate ethics and responsibility!

Try another tripe-and-trite lecture!

To their great credit the editors of this site permit posters to give as good as they get. If you can't take the heat of the free-speech kitchen then get out!

So nobody asked--nor even needs--the Witchita shyster-apologist to be "nice." Sticking to the enumerated ISSUES(of substance)at hand rather than dispensing BOGUS advice is what would be "nice," but shyster-apologists are invariably INEPT at doing so--as you've proved, Dave.

My message however remains: All consumers have to do to effectively fight--and DEFEAT--shysterism is to first QUESTION AND CHALLENGE things often taken for granted: like this bank's entitlement to even inflict its shyster fees in the FIRST PLACE.

Illiteracy then is no more "surprising" to me than ineptitude, speaking of "attitude," for you see, Dave: I've had no "myriad of problems" at all with the bank--this entire post has dealt entirely with matters relating to my wife's account, not mine.

What's "hilarious," truly, is your inability to read plain, written English. What's up with THAT, Dave?

So don't presume to preach to me about "common sense" until you GET SOME, or where to bank, or why, or for how long. Frankly, that's nobody's business--specially YOURS. Get my drift, Dave?

What I "suggest" to you, in my turn, is to "seriously consider MY advice" and take some sorely needed REMEDIAL READING instruction before presuming to do what you're so OBVIOUSLY ill-equipped to do: pompously advice others!

As for saving on the cost of "high blood pressure medicine," I neither use nor need it and never have. In fact, I'd wager you your entire BofA account ANYTIME--sight unseen--that my physical conditioning SURPASSES YOURS by any and every standard of comparison. TALK IS CHEAP! Would you be UP to THAT, Dave?

So next time, try writing out of knowledge rather than out-and-out IGNORANCE--if indeed it isn't "too late for that!"

I have banked with BofA since 1987 and had no problems. Yes, I DO keep an accurate record of my expenses in my check register. It's simple. Record ATM transactions immediately just as you would a check. Waiting until later is a recipe for disaster. On-line BofA access has made banking so much easier, as I can check every day except Sunday and Monday to see what items have cleared and what items have not. I can then deduce my accurate balance immediately.....not the available balance, because that will not reflect outstanding debits not yet posted, but the balance of funds I have at my disposal. Every school should teach "checkbook 101". Perhaps you need a refresher course.

First let me say good for Krista for attempting to be nice to Joseph here. While Krista refrained from insults Joseph just let them fly.

It isn't surprising to me that you have had a myriad of problems with Bank of America given your attitude. You might consider keeping all of your cash in your mattress or some other personal place so as to avoid the nasty banks and their neverending quest for your hard earned dollars.

I've banked with B of A for a few years now and have had no problems with their services. It's hilarious that you've had this same issue with B of A for what, 3+ years? Your 'outrageous' fees continued to climb each year and yet you're still with the same bank? What's up with that Joe? Common sense would dictate that if you found no satisfaction in year one (2000) for the $291.00 dollars allegedly 'stolen' from you a new bank would have been a wise move yet you happily paid higher fees each consecutive year. B of A must be doing something right if they can charge erroneous fees and still keep you as a customer for so long!

I suggest you seriously consider my advice about keeping your money out of banks since they obviously treat you so poorly. It will save you the cost of high blood pressure medicine in the future (or perhaps it's too late for that?)

....is what I'd call ANY Wicked Witch of Witchita(figuratively speaking)who'd apologize and make excuses for shysterism to their last dying breath!

Presumptuous, too, telling me what I "expect," but I wouldn't DARE tell any patently frustrated shyster-apologist to "roll over under" anything--too UN-sightly a prospect!

Presumptuous, too, telling me what my "responsibility" is when what she must "know" is blatantly pretty PALTRY.

Notice though how petty shyster-apologists invariably revert to retreating behind fine-print "bank terms"--like maggots beneath rotting boards.

So "seriously people," let's get real here: NOBODY runs around carrying a pocket calculator "keeping track of(their)transactions" and posted debits to the last little cent--nor should ANYBODY be "expected" to.

Yet this presumptuous VOLUNTEER shyster-apologist(she's not bank "representative," after all)--in her lame attempt at last-wordism--thinks she's really-got-him-now with her equally lame posing of the ultimate "why" question:

"Why would you try to charge past that(my "real" balance)and then blame the bank for not denying the charge?"

Utterly presumptuous: NOBODY ever claimed to "try" to debit past ANYTHING!

The unadulterated truth is, such an insidious automated system is blatantly designed to BLEED the poorest, lowest-balance accounts to DEATH! Obviously, fat-account holders with money to burn don't need to "balance(their)checkbooks" at month's end like once-a-month salary earners do.

So let's rebut with some REAL "why" questions:

1)Why wouldn't--nay, why SHOULDN'T--an automated system decline(or "deny")attempted debits exceeding account balances if they were set up RESPONSIBLY--if for no other pretext than account SECURITY alone--UNLESS they're indeed INTENDED to generate exorbitant ripoff penalty fees? There's simply no rational justification for it whatever.

2)More basic still, WHY should banks get off scott free charging customers upwards of $32 a pop for a debit exceeding its balance by a few paltry cents IN THE FIRST PLACE???? I don't know about this particular shyster-apologist, but I'm used to getting either a product or a service for money I'm charged for to pay out--and this automated swindle qualifies as NEITHER.

3)More basic even still, WHY should bank customers be "expected" much less compelled to pay for such ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS charges or fees for which they never, ever CONTRACTED with banks to pay IN THE FIRST PLACE????

It amounts to something closely akin to taxation without representation or bureaucratic regulations without statutory legitimacy. Only shyster-apologists would deliberately IGNORE the blatant ILL-legitimacy of the ENTIRE SET-UP--insiduously designed to milk and sponge the lowest-balance accounts.

Thus the sole purpose of this "post": to INFORM all justice-concerned consumers that ALL they have to do to challenge such shysterism is to outright REFUSE to PAY for it!

So it's just as well that this particular shyster-apologist doesn't state her "opinion"--most aren't likely interested in it anyway: she was "done" before she ever got started.

If she truly thinks this "post" is so "ridiculous," it makes one wonder about the ill-mentality of ANYBODY who'd waste that much time, effort--to say nothing of their dying last-worder breath--ON the "ridiculous!"

Alright, I've run across customers like yourself and I know you won't read any of what I'm about to write and you expect me to just lay down and roll over under your words. I'm not, I will say this and then leave you be. I am not a representative of this bank, but I do have a checking account. Here's what I know, read it if you wish.

If a transaction has not posted to your account, the bank cannot know that you made it and therefore shows a higher balance and will not deny a charge that falls beneath the available limit. Some things post faster than others.

ALSO
In the banks terms, they state that they "may approve a transaction at their discretion that exceeds your available limit and will charge xx as a fee for that service" IF YOU DID NOT AGREE, it was YOUR responsibility to ask that they not cover those items.

LAST
You say that you aren't relying on the bank to be your accountant, but it seems that you are relying on them for willpower. If you are keeping track of your transactions, you know that you have charges that may be coming through that have not posted and will know your "real" balance. Why would you try to charge past that and then blame the bank for not denying the charge?

I will not state my opinion on how you speak to customer service representatives. You will do what you will.
I am done with this post, it is just rediculous.

Alright, I've run across customers like yourself and I know you won't read any of what I'm about to write and you expect me to just lay down and roll over under your words. I'm not, I will say this and then leave you be. I am not a representative of this bank, but I do have a checking account. Here's what I know, read it if you wish.

If a transaction has not posted to your account, the bank cannot know that you made it and therefore shows a higher balance and will not deny a charge that falls beneath the available limit. Some things post faster than others.

ALSO
In the banks terms, they state that they "may approve a transaction at their discretion that exceeds your available limit and will charge xx as a fee for that service" IF YOU DID NOT AGREE, it was YOUR responsibility to ask that they not cover those items.

LAST
You say that you aren't relying on the bank to be your accountant, but it seems that you are relying on them for willpower. If you are keeping track of your transactions, you know that you have charges that may be coming through that have not posted and will know your "real" balance. Why would you try to charge past that and then blame the bank for not denying the charge?

I will not state my opinion on how you speak to customer service representatives. You will do what you will.
I am done with this post, it is just rediculous.

Alright, I've run across customers like yourself and I know you won't read any of what I'm about to write and you expect me to just lay down and roll over under your words. I'm not, I will say this and then leave you be. I am not a representative of this bank, but I do have a checking account. Here's what I know, read it if you wish.

If a transaction has not posted to your account, the bank cannot know that you made it and therefore shows a higher balance and will not deny a charge that falls beneath the available limit. Some things post faster than others.

ALSO
In the banks terms, they state that they "may approve a transaction at their discretion that exceeds your available limit and will charge xx as a fee for that service" IF YOU DID NOT AGREE, it was YOUR responsibility to ask that they not cover those items.

LAST
You say that you aren't relying on the bank to be your accountant, but it seems that you are relying on them for willpower. If you are keeping track of your transactions, you know that you have charges that may be coming through that have not posted and will know your "real" balance. Why would you try to charge past that and then blame the bank for not denying the charge?

I will not state my opinion on how you speak to customer service representatives. You will do what you will.
I am done with this post, it is just rediculous.

To Krista, Ms. Apologist and Excuse-Maker for the Bank of America Shyster Establishment:

I confronted the exact same situation with a MAJOR credit card company and so outright REFUSED to pay any so-called "late/overlimit" fees which I never contracted with the company to pay--and which having more control over the account I could deduct from the balance. Additionally, I notified the company to not only reverse the fees but also to set its automated system to correctly DECLINE any attempted charges to the account exceeding its credit limit.

And GUESS WHAT(shock of SHOCKS!), Ms. Apologist for the Shyster Establishment? The credit card company did indeed REVERSE all fees I never contracted to pay and did indeed correctly set its automated system to REJECT any attempted charges exceeding the account's credit limit.

"SERIOUSLY PEOPLE," it shouldn't take an apologist for the shyster establishment in ILL-intellectual "health" to figure out the "COMMON SENSE" of the matter: if the Bank of America, like the major credit card company, practiced corporate RESPONSIBILITY(rather than corporate shysterism), practiced customer SERVICE(rather than customer swindling)the "legitimate" comparison is clear-cut:

If the credit card company can technically set its automated system to SERVE(rather than swindle)its customers, then so can the Bank of America.

So don't presume to preach to me how to properly deal with shysters and swindlers. Save your shysteristic apologies and excuses for the gullible and the ignorant--not the legitimate victims at this site!

"SERIOUSLY PEOPLE!"

Well, the editor I guess didn't feel my previous response was worthy of being posted, but I'll try it again.

To the original poster: Do you honestly believe that the bank is in error because you relied solely on their telephone banking system? Some items will take a few days to post to your account even if you do use a check card. You can't expect to go for coffee and call the bank 5min. later and have it posted and a new balance. They invented the telephone banking to ASSIST people in BALANCING their checkbook WITHOUT waiting for a monthly statement. It ALSO allows you to VERIFY that a certain transaction was posted. WHY do you think that they list the transactions that have processed lately after the balance? IT'S NOT FOR YOUR HEALTH! THEY ALSO SAY THAT THE BALANCE MAY NOT INCLUDE TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE PENDING!

It is no wonder that I get results when I call any companies and talk to customer service... I usually have legitimate issues, talk politely, and have COMMON SENSE!!!!

Well, I'm done here. This is a great website for legitimate complaint on companies and for people to offer advice, but seriously people...

I do not bank with Bank of America, however, I assume that procedurally they most likely work much like my bank.

A little known fact is that most FDIC insured institutions automatically extend "Overdraft Authorization" to your checking account and to your ATM or Checkcard. Their justification for this is that they assume that "you know your balance and must have a desperate need for the purchases or payments that you are making".

You can request to opt out of the overdraft authorization for most importantly your ATM or Checkcard so that if the balance in your account is not sufficient to cover the purchase that you are making, it will decline without assessing you an overdraft fee.

If you request to have the overdraft authorization removed from your checking account, it will still allow items to attempt to post. However, the items will be returned unpaid which will still cause you an overdraft charge in your checking account and cause you to incur a returned item charge from whomever you are trying to pay.

I do not recommend this because you will then be faced with fees on both ends.

Please ask Bank of America if this is a practice that they participate in so that hopefully you can keep more of your hard earned dollars.
Also, many institutions are now offering no low balance fee checking accounts.

Ask BOA if they have another product that can help you avoid paying them so many fees. They may not offer up this information unless you ask for it. Most institutions can change the type of account that you have without changing your account number.

I also suspect that BOA is not online with the Federal Reserve. If that is the case then the reason that your balance appears to be off it is because for all intents and purposes the balance you are hearing on the automated system is running 24hrs behind.

I truly hope that some of this information proves helpful to you and helps you to keep your hard earned money. It is painful to think that you could have a nice savings account with all of the fees that you have had to pay.

I do not bank with Bank of America, however, I assume that procedurally they most likely work much like my bank.

A little known fact is that most FDIC insured institutions automatically extend "Overdraft Authorization" to your checking account and to your ATM or Checkcard. Their justification for this is that they assume that "you know your balance and must have a desperate need for the purchases or payments that you are making".

You can request to opt out of the overdraft authorization for most importantly your ATM or Checkcard so that if the balance in your account is not sufficient to cover the purchase that you are making, it will decline without assessing you an overdraft fee.

If you request to have the overdraft authorization removed from your checking account, it will still allow items to attempt to post. However, the items will be returned unpaid which will still cause you an overdraft charge in your checking account and cause you to incur a returned item charge from whomever you are trying to pay.

I do not recommend this because you will then be faced with fees on both ends.

Please ask Bank of America if this is a practice that they participate in so that hopefully you can keep more of your hard earned dollars.
Also, many institutions are now offering no low balance fee checking accounts.

Ask BOA if they have another product that can help you avoid paying them so many fees. They may not offer up this information unless you ask for it. Most institutions can change the type of account that you have without changing your account number.

I also suspect that BOA is not online with the Federal Reserve. If that is the case then the reason that your balance appears to be off it is because for all intents and purposes the balance you are hearing on the automated system is running 24hrs behind.

I truly hope that some of this information proves helpful to you and helps you to keep your hard earned money. It is painful to think that you could have a nice savings account with all of the fees that you have had to pay.

I do not bank with Bank of America, however, I assume that procedurally they most likely work much like my bank.

A little known fact is that most FDIC insured institutions automatically extend "Overdraft Authorization" to your checking account and to your ATM or Checkcard. Their justification for this is that they assume that "you know your balance and must have a desperate need for the purchases or payments that you are making".

You can request to opt out of the overdraft authorization for most importantly your ATM or Checkcard so that if the balance in your account is not sufficient to cover the purchase that you are making, it will decline without assessing you an overdraft fee.

If you request to have the overdraft authorization removed from your checking account, it will still allow items to attempt to post. However, the items will be returned unpaid which will still cause you an overdraft charge in your checking account and cause you to incur a returned item charge from whomever you are trying to pay.

I do not recommend this because you will then be faced with fees on both ends.

Please ask Bank of America if this is a practice that they participate in so that hopefully you can keep more of your hard earned dollars.
Also, many institutions are now offering no low balance fee checking accounts.

Ask BOA if they have another product that can help you avoid paying them so many fees. They may not offer up this information unless you ask for it. Most institutions can change the type of account that you have without changing your account number.

I also suspect that BOA is not online with the Federal Reserve. If that is the case then the reason that your balance appears to be off it is because for all intents and purposes the balance you are hearing on the automated system is running 24hrs behind.

I truly hope that some of this information proves helpful to you and helps you to keep your hard earned money. It is painful to think that you could have a nice savings account with all of the fees that you have had to pay.